Ncaa-fsu
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Ncaa-fsu as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 34,632
- Pages: 342
1=&11H
1
PROCEEDINGS BEFORZ THE DIVISION I
2
COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS OF THE
3
4
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION In Re:
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY )
5
Case No. M286
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
6
BE IT
7
October,
8
hearing
9
Infractions
2008,
REMEMBERED,
that on this 18th day of
the above-entitled matter comes on for
before of
the The
Division
National
Committee
I
Collegiate
10
Association,
11
Indianapolis,
12
a.m., with Chairman Dennis Thomas presiding.
13
Indiana,
The other
14
are:
15
Mmes.
16
Jennings.
in
meeting
the
beginning
17
Athletic
Westin
Hotel,
8:30
o'clock
at
members of the Committee present
Messrs. Alfred IIJimlJ Lechner, Josephine
on
Potuto,
Messrs. John
Andrea
Black,
James Park, Jr.; Myers
Britton
and
Eileen"
Banowsky and
18
Melissa Conboy, new members of the Committee, were in
19
attendance.
20 21
Ms. Naima Stevenson is present representing
the NCAA General Counsel's Office.
22
Mr.
Shepard
23
Committees on Infractions,
24
Director
25
Cheryl
for DeWees,
the
Cooper,
Director
for
the
Mr. Jim Elworth, Assistant
Committees
Coordinator
on for
Infractions, the
Ms.
Cowmittees on
I
{ .
i 1'
1 I;
I
I I' i
I' I•
C&llH
-2-
1
Infractions,
2
Admin~strative
3
Infractions were also present.
4
and
Karen
t-ls.
Assistant
to
the
Martin,
Committees on
present
are Mr. Jerry Parkinson
5
and Mr. Brian Halloran,
Coordinators of Appeals
6
for the Infractions Committee.
Also
7
APPEARANCES
8
9
The National
NCAA
Enforcement
Collegiate
Athletic
10
represented
11
Didion, Ameen
Najjar,
12
Strobel;
and
Mmes.
13
Hannah,
Julie
Roe,
14
Henderson, Kelly Graddy.
15
by
Messrs.
Present
of
the
Association
was
David
Kevin
Price,
Lennon
Joyce
David
and Chris
Thompson, Stephanie
Rachel
on
Staff
Baker,
behalf
of
Jennifer
Florida State
16
University are
17
Beckham,
18
Abele, Mark Meleney,
19
and Mmes. Betty Steffens and Stacey Karpinski.
20 of
22
present.
24
25
Randy
T.K.
Spetman,
Wetherell, Joseph
Brian
Chuck
Smrt,
Battle,
Larry
Bill Shults;
Mr. Shane Lyons, Associate Coromissioner
21
23
Messrs.
the
Atlantic
Ms.
Coast
Brenda
Conference,
t10nk
was
also
and her attorney of
record, Mr. Brant Hargrove, appear in person.
I I' I' II i
I '
I ):
l I :
I \
'
I, r
II
I
r II I) I
I \
I ,
~&llH
3
1
(Whereupon,
2
are had and entered of record.)
the
following proceedings
3
4
CHAIR.'1AN
THOMAS:
5
everyone.
6
University.
7
Commissioner
8
Conference and
9
Committee on Infractions.
10
This is Case No.
Good
M286, Florida State
My name is Dennis Thomas.
of
the
morning,
Mid-Eastern
I am the
Athletic
the Vice-Chair of the Division I
With me today hearing this case are to
11
my
12
Athletics Emeritus at Indiana
13
Alfred "Jim"
14
New York Law firm of Case & White,
15
a
16
Jersey.
l7
two public members.
right,
Federal
Andrea
Myers,
the
Director
of
State University;
Lechner, Jr., an attorney with the
District
Hr. Lechner
Judge,
is one
and formerly
District
of
New
of the Committee's
18
my
~o
Larson
left
19
Richard H.
20
Law at
21
the
22
Jennings,
23
Michigan
24
attorney with
the law
25
of Lexington,
Kentucky.
~s
Josephine Potu to, the
Professor
of Constitutional
the University of Nebraska,
former
chair
the
of
this
general
University;
Lincoln, and
Committee;
counsel
James
Park,
at
Eileen
Central
Jr.,
r
an
firm of Frost Brown Todd
Mr.
Park
is a public
I'
\
I
4
me:nber.
2
Seated
3
Shep
4
Infractions,
5
Director.
Cooper I
6
At
at
the
the
table
Director
and
Jim
the
table
to my right is
for
Committees on
Elworth,
to
the
my
Assistant
left
are
the
7
Committee's
8
Jerry Parkinson,
9
the University of Wyoming, and Brian Halloran of
two
Coordinators
Dean of
10
Malibu,
California,
11
counsel
of
12
company
13
business.
14
Pai~ted
i..r:.volved
ivIs.
Naima
15
Counsel's Office,
16
herself
17
Ur.iversity.
between
is
the
the School
the
manager
Hills
in
of Appeals: Dean
Wind
the
and
general
Developers, a
renewable
Stevenson,
seated
of Law at
at
NCAA I
the
S
pm.;er
General
table by
enforcement staff and the
Where is Naima?
There you are.
18
Cheryl
the
DeWees,
Committee's
19
Coordinator,
20
Administrative Assistant, are seated together at
21
the table
22
Ms. Martin
23
logistical needs during the hearing.
24
25
and
Karen Martin, the Committee's
behind Ms. Stevenson.
are
available
Also here
Bowen &
to
today is
Associates, a
Ms. DeWees and
assist
~lr.
with any
John Bowen, of
Certified Court Reporter
I I
from
2
Kansas
City,
to
take
the record in the
case.
3
three
Finally,
recently
appointed
4
members
5
hearing as observers and are seated
6
back of the room with Ms. DeWees and Ms. Nartin.
7
They are John Black, a new
8
Black
9
Shughart,
10
Missouri.
11
of
is
the
a
Committee
partner
Thomson
Also
&
here
are
attending this
in the very
public member.
with
the
Kilroy
of
law
Mr.
firm
Kansas
of
City,
is Melissa "Missy" Conboy,
12
the
13
Woman's Administrator at the University of Notre
14
Dame, and Britton Banowsky,
15
Conference USA.
16
17
Deputy
Director
Before
I
of
Athletics
and Senior
the Commissioner of
turn to other instructions,
let me explain how this microphone vlorks.
It is
18
a very sophisticated abject.
On each microphone
19
is a small
black
You
20
microphone
by
21
your microphone
22
collar on the top will be illuminated.
23
button.
pushing
is
When you
24
your
microphone,
25
microphones
except
that
activated
activate your
button.
You know
because
the red
push the button and activate
you
turn
mine.
off So,
all
other
please,
be
I
6
1
careful.
2
someone
3
activate it when you wish to speak.
Don't activate
else
4
is
your microphone while
speaking.
But
sure to
You don't need to press your button to
5
turn off
6
happens when the next speaker pushes
7
button.
8
you are done, all that will
9
cut off
your microphone
as that automatically
his or her
If you push the microphone button when
the next speaker.
10
this.
11
to activate
12
the button.
happen is
you will
So, please, don't do
If the person sitting next to you forgets
13
14
be
his or
her microphone, please push
Finally, if
you
have
a
cell phone,
please turn it off or place it in a silent mode. President
15
16
introduce
17
from the University?
yourself
Wetherel~,
will you please
and
representatives
other
18
'1R.
\i'JETHEREL:' :
19
Chairman.
20
Florida State
21
right.
22
general counsel for Florida state.
23
I
am
T.K.
Wetherell,
~
University.
Betty
Steffens
is
President of
will go down to my
here,
who
is the
Chuck Smrt, who served as a consultant
24
for us on this case,
25
the Provost
is
with us.
of Florida
State is
Larry Abele,
here.
Stacey
7
1
Karpinski,
2
consultant on the case.
3
Dr.
also
with
Joe
Chuckrs
Beckham,
Rep for
5
our Athletic
6
Associate
7
Mark
8
Athletic Director for Academic
9
current
Athletic
Meleney,
Randy
Director.
who
a
Spetman, who is
Brian Battle, who is an
Director
is
Academic
and
who is the Faculty
4
Florida State.
firm
the
for
former
Compliance.
Associate
Service, and our
Services
Director
for
10
Athletics, Bill Shults.
11
the table is Shane Lyons, who is the ACC Rep for
12
us.
13
14
And at
CHAI~~N THO~ffiS:
the far
end of
Thank you, President
Wetherell.
15
Mr.
16
introduced.
17
yourself?
Lyons,
Would
you
you
have
like
already
been
to re-introduce
18
~!R.
19
CHAI~~ffiN
20
21
22
23
24
25
LYONS:
That is okay.
THO~~S:
All right.
Thank
you.
Ms. Monk, will you,
please, introduce
yourself and your counsel?
MS. MONK:
I am Dr. Brenda Monk, and I
served as a learning specialist at Florida State
University from
2001 until 2007.
Sitting to my
) I
I
I
:':':-&llH
8
1
left is Brant Hargrove,
2
today.
3
CHAI&~N
4
Mr. Price.
5
MR.
THOMAS:
HARGROVE:
6
question, if I may.
7
that when
8
many and we are few.
9
have Allison
I
representing me
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have a
mentioned
to
Dr. Monk
we walked into the room that they are
I would
Monk sit
10
has assisted me on
11
aid me
12
that is allowable.
13
too.
14
who is
if I
next to
some of
could have
CHAI&~N
ask permission to
me, because she
this, and
it would
her sit next to me,
if
If it is not,
that is fine.
THOMAS:
have
"Ie
15
addressed that
16
comes about
17
she will be allowed to participate.
issue, and
already
when the information
that is relevant to your assistant,
Thank you.
18
"lR. HARGROVE:
19
CHp.~IRL'vJAN
20
MR.
Thank you.
THOMAS:
PRICE:
you.
I
22
immediate
23
responsible for presenting the case today, David
24
Didion and Joyce Thompson.
are
the
Enforcement.
am David
Price,
left
of
Price.
21
25
Vice-President
Thank
Y]r.
two
Then we have Directors
'Lo my
individuals
of Enforcement
9
1
Stephanie
Ameen
Najjar.
2
Rachel Baker is our Director of Agents,
Gambling
3
& Amateurism
4
President for Membership Services.
Hannah,
5
Julie
activities.
Jennifer
Roe,
Kevin Lennon is Vice-
Henderson
and
6
are
7
staff, and Andrew Perrott is a
B
us.
9
Strobel
10
with
our
He is
is
student-athlete
not here
our
see.
of
Enforcement
THOMAS:
CHAlfu~N
for
I would also like to
12
note
13
Services,
14
are any
15
student-athlete's reinstatement.
17
And Chris
Secondary Violations.
11
16
reinstatement
legal intern for
today, I
Director
Kelly Groddy
that
the
Vice-President
Kevin
Lennon,
questions from
In
informally.
these
If
Membership
is here in case there
the Committee regarding
hearings
you
for
wish
we proceed rather
to
take
oft your
18
jacket,
19
~velcome
20
YOurself of
21
room.
22
please
fee~
free
to
do so.
to star..d up and move about and
Yoc are
to avail
the refreshments in the back of the
We usually spend about
23
hour and
24
any time you
25
please feel free to do so.
a half
need
and then
to
step
an hour
or an
take a break.
If at
out
of
the room!
One exception is for
I~&
IlH
lO
1
Dr.
~loI:k.
2
As you kr.otv,
3
allegations
4
you need to step out,
5
accommodate you.
6
are
You
you
should be
discussed
were
previously
Notice of Allegations
8
staff, as
9
received from the Committee,
10
does
11
materials
12
received
13
have developed.
not
14
and
If
by
sent
advised
in the
the enforcement
in a supplemental letter you
receive
which
or concern you.
just signal me and we will
7
well as
here when
all
the
which
of
that the Committee
the information and
staff
enforcement
the
has
enforcement staff may
In particular, the Committee
does not
IS
see
16
staff has
17
the Committee has seen is a list of items that I
all
the
information
placed in
ttat the enforcement
the custodial
file.
What
18
am going to read now.
19
provided to you.
20
record of the case as it exists right now at the
21
start of this hearing.
22
\vhat
That list
a~so
tas been
This list contains the written
the
Corruuittee
knoHs about this
23
case is what is contained in
24
report currently includes the following items:
25
Notice of Inquiry.
this record.
The
11
Notice of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The
A~legations.
institution's
response to Notice
of Allegations.
Brenda Monk's response
to
the Notice
of Allegations.
A letter from David Hart regarding the
University corrective actions.
A letter from
President
Wetherell in
response to Dave Hart's letter.
10
The Case Summary.
11
Brenda Monk's supplemental response to
12
13
the Notice of Allegations.
A
memo
14
Reinstatement
15
from the Committee.
16
17
from
the
in
response
staff
Letters from
consultant,
Chuck
Florida
Smrt,
Student-Athlete
to questions
State's outside
expressing
concern
regardir.g
Comm'::'ttee1s
the
19
information
20
Reinstatement staff.
from
the
request
for
Student-Athlete
The University1s response to questions
21
22
posed by
23
October 14th memo at random sent to Chuck Smrt.
If there
24
25
the Cowmittee
not part
on october 14th, and an
are any
materials which are
of the record, which I just listed and
12
1
that you want the
2
you
3
have
4
during this hearing.
must
that
5
ask
Committee
introduced
Com~ittee
6
determine what
7
made a part of the record.
8
9
Let
consider,
t~e~
permission from the Committee to
information
The
to
has
additional
me
the discretion to
information
emphasize
this case constitutes the
as evidence
will be
that the record in
list of
items that I
In addition, any other items
10
just read
11
accepted into the record during this
12
well,
13
as discussed here today that will be transcribed
14
by Mr. Bowen.
15
of
to you.
course, and
hearing as
the information presented
The Committee's
findings in this case
16
will be based on this record.
17
adverse findings
against the
Should
there be
University or any
18
party involved that results
19
record
20
will constitute the full and complete
21
appeal.
and
the
there
23
memoranda transcripts and
24
are
25
party
provided
by
the
an
appeal,
this
Committee's infractions report
Finally,
22
~n
to
may
other
be
record on
copies
of
documents that
the University or an involved
enforcement
staff
during
this
C&l:LH 13
1
hearing.
2
the
3
today! shearing.
These
enforcement
4
documents must be returned to
staff
at
the
conclusion
of
,'Ie have set aside the day to hear this
5
case.
6
complete exploration
of the issues t
7
through the hearing.
We will spend as much time
8
as
for
9
circumstances
We
is
are
here
to
necessary
out
of
When
11
satisfied that you have
12
to do that.
l3
finish
At
the
you
which
10
we
undertake
today,
end
we
to
a
full and
not to rush
explain
the
this
case arose.
want
you
had a
to
be
full opportunity
of the hearing today, we
14
would
15
University regarding
16
ar.d corrective actions,
l7
reasoning the institution used in imposing these
like
to
have
a
discussion
with
the
its self-imposed penalties
and
in
particular the
13
sar.ctions
19
actions.
20
and
implementing
the
c:Jrrective
Based upon the information that may be
21
discussed in the hearing today,
22
been
23
submitted, the Committee
24
its own
25
or to amend the allegations to
raised
in
the
initiative to
or that may have
information
has
the
previously
authority on
make additional findings
conform with the
~&l:!.H
14
1
information presented today.
2
Additional findings
3
bylaw violations,
4
lack
5
monitor.
of
6
including
institutional
may relate to any
unethical conduct,
control,
or failure to
We have noted in particular that there
7
is an
8
the institution and an
9
against a former academic advisor.
allegation of
10
failure to monitor against
unethical conduct charge
if
Even
11
allegations,
12
that
the
13
the
evidence
14
justifies such action.
15
If
there
were
those here today
Committee
such
should understand
can make these findings if
presented
the
no
Committee
16
additional findings may be
17
inform all
parties and
to
the
Corrunittee
should decide that
appropriate,
it will
give the opportunity to
additio~al
18
respond.
19
to unethical
20
control or a failure
21
will
22
further
23
desire.
24
25
:f the
afford
conduct,
the
response
Each
the lack of
to monitor,
parties
after
an
in
the
instit~tiona:
the Committee
opportunity
hearing
violation
of Allegations, or
ipformation relates
if
they
for
so
charged in the Notice
enforcement staff's
C&llfi
IS
Case
is
Slarunary
2
vio2.ation
3
specifically
4
violation.
5
of
considered
the
be
a
as
a
secondary
staff,
enforcement
major
unless
legislation
NCAA
designated
If
to
the
6
institution or Dr. Monk believe that a violation
7
is secondary, including any initially alleged as
8
a secondary
9
that party must make that known to the Committee
violation by the enforcement staff,
10
at this
11
written submission, if any,
12
and arguments why it is secondary.
13
hearing and either then rest on its own
The
or present evidence
~vill
make
considering
all
Commi ttee
the
14
decision
15
information and arguments in the record.
16
17
after
Everyone
that any issues
here
related
of
final
the
today also should know
to
the
processing of
~8
this case
19
of the enforcement staff
20
the course of this hearing.
21
Failure
22
the course of the
23
of such
24
precludes raising these issues on appeal.
25
includes issues regarding the conduct
claim.
We now
to
must be
raise
raised during
suet claims during
hearing constitutes
a waiver
Among other things, such waiver
turn to
brief general opening
[&~lE
3...6
1
statements
2
staff.
3
to make
4
well as you, Mr. Lyons.
from
the
University
and
the NCAi\
Dr. Monk will be provided an opportenity
an opening
statement, if
you wish, as
5
After opening statements, we will turn
6
to the allegations contained in the Case Summary
7
and work through those.
vIe
8
allegations in
as they appear in the
9
Case Summary.
10
the order
After we have
"ill
considered
address the
all
of the
11
allegations,
12
from the University, Dr. Monk and the NCAA.
13
Lyons,
14
closing statement if you wish.
you
we
will
will have
have
closing statements
the opportunity to make a
15
Are there any questions?
16
MR. HARGROVE:
17
Mr.
Yes,
sir, I
have one.
On behalf of Dr. Monk, will I be allowed to make
18
the opening statement?
19
didn't mention me.
20
CHAIru~N
"feu mer,tioned
her, you
I just wanted to be sure.
THQ~ffiS:
Dr. Monk, are you
I' 21
agreeing
22
opening statement for you?
to
having
23
MS. MONK:
24
CHAlfu~N
25
Mr. Didion,
your
counsel
perform the
Yes, sir.
THOMAS:
Thank you.
have all of those who are
i
,
:::&l1E
'-7
at risk at this
2
MR.
DIDION:
Yes,
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
of the
they
have,
~IR.
8
CHAIR1'1AN
Eave all eligibility
DIDION:
They have.
THOMAS:
Are
there
any
instances in this case in which student-athletes
10
competed
11
the vacation of contests by the Committee?
12
13
Mr.
issues been resolved?
7
9
inforned
Chair.
5
6
been
date, time and place of the hearing?
3
4
hearing
while
ineligible
MR. DIDION:
and might result in
I believe there were,
those have been addressed by the
14
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
15
MS. POTUTO:
and
i~stitution.
Okay.
I just want to put on the
16
record now that as I understand the institution,
17
they
related
to
NCAA
championships,
and the
18
Coruni t tee
19
season and conference.
has
some
::p.:.estioES
about
regular
I' 20
MR.
DIDION:
21
CHAIR.'1AN
That's correct.
THO~IAS:
22
opening statements.
23
statements
24
case and not recitation
25
to particular
should
We will now turn to
Let me emphasize that these
be
general overviews of the
of information relevant
allegations.
Please be as brief
1~~&llH
18
1
2
3
state~ents.
as possible with the opening
President Wetherell, are you ready for
the institutional opening statement?
4
MR. WETHERELL:
5
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
6
~1R.
Chairman.
8
provided
9
statement, and they
me
Thank
consultants
with
some
and
notes
started
10
you for
11
reflecting upon that a
12
can think
13
here today, quite frankly.
14
Thank you.
WETHERELL:
7
The
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
off
you,
various people
to
make
this
with thanking
the opportunity to be here today.
moment, I
Mr.
Upon
don't think I
of a place I would rather not be than
Florida
State
be
here.
15
frankly,
16
institution than this.
17
that we
to
is
embarrassed, quite
We
This
are
is
a
better
not something
are proud of, and it is not necessarily
apprec~ate
18
our finest nOllr.
19
and the
20
as we went through this process.
21
But we do
support that
the help
we received from the NCAA
I kind of reflect
22
and remember
23
and in the final
24
.it well
25
best performance of all.
back
to
Apollo 13
that they started off to the moon,
may have
analysis never
been NASA'S
made that, but
most probable or
II
I !
!
,
,
I
'
i9
I think Florida State will come out of
2
this a
3
might be.
4
provided
5
knowledge,
6
facts of the case.
better institution, as embarrassed as we
You have read the case, you have been
the
information.
there is
To the best of my
real~y
no
It evolved
in a
8
expect it to evolve.
The
9
reviewed
after
matter
way that
NCAA
we
10
pursuant to policy and
11
very few
12
report and made very few changes.
l3
we did not
came
There were
We then reacted to that
So, the facts are
pretty simple.
14
seems
15
surface, but I think as you have read
16
you hear
17
out that this is a very complex issue.
a
relatively
testimony today
down and
had sent it up
procedures.
changes made.
like
in the
We self-reported this case.
7
the
conflict
simple
case
It
on the
it and as
you are going to find
I i
18
Those of
you
in
the
~aw
profession
19
will
20
the challenges that the institution had
21
as
22
proceeding.
particularly
we
23
went
We
note
through
would
some of the
various
point
out
24
doesn't
25
searched throughout NCAA records
fit
in
the
NCAA
~ssues
and
to face
segments of this
that
Manual.
it really
We
have
and can't find
I I
j
20
1
a case
2
this many different optior.s.
3
This case does not
that is
of this
4
by any coach, any
5
boosters,
6
directly
7
~hatrs
ass~stant
donors,
involved
The facts of
student-athlete
went
involve misconduct
coach.
no
with
highly unusual.
8
9
no
particular nature with
There are no
trainers,
teams
in
We admit that.
the
to
matter
the
are
Ii
at
12
about another student-athlete
13
and do some work.
14
The
17
is
who
student-attlete
involved
happened to be
20
While
the student-athlete was asked
basically responded by saying he
he
that a
Academic Support
Center to do some work as they should do.
center,
one
athletics.
~o
that
no
_1!
some
athlete
otter tto~
was
to come
number
~s
one
not coming,
things.
That
18
19
20
fer
given
out
appropriately and
21
legally
22
student-athlete
23
student-athlete Dumber
24
a qciz on that day, an onlir.e quiz.
25
,I
6e was working
tearlS
number
one
.J.,.,.
tte combine.
was
advised
Tte
that
two was supposed to take
The studeht-athlete number one said he
21
is
not
coming,
2
test.
3
the
4
University.
he
is
not going to take that
He was then advised to sit
test
by
5
a
staff
The athlete
person at Florida state
getting instructions from
6
a staff
7
ask to do this, he was not even
8
course.
person did
9
The
down and take
as he was told.
student-athlete
He did not
enrolled in the
took
the
test,
10
left the center,
reported
that
11
His
reported
it to the Compliance
12
Center,
13
to NCAA regulations.
coach
14
then
and FSU began
The
issue
15
who
16
Athletic
Department
17
was my decision that
was
going
to
to
his coach.
an investigation pursuant
at
do
that point in time was
the
investigation!
the
or
some other entity?
It
we
would
let
some other
entity
do
chat
~nvest~gation
involving a coach or
20
point in time,
since it was
an ath:etic
~ot
issue at that
it was a personnel matter. 11
We
21
at
determined
23
cOhjunction with
24
believed
25
relations issue at that point in time.
HR staff at
dealir.g
should
Inspector
General
were
State
the
22
we
Florida
that
do
F~orida
with
an
it
in
State.
we
employee
I.
22
1
The
employee
was
so
notified!
the
2
athletic director was so notified because he had
3
beer. told
4
that process.
5
by the
Part
of
coach, and
that
6
included
7
in the course.
8
athletes
9
basically as they went
10
was not
11
up.
12
talking
investigation
much that
to student-athletes that were
was
to,
amongst other people, and
through that
~V'e
didn I t
only
at
student-athlete basically
14
know what the big problem is.
15
student mentor
16
thing.
l7
other problems.
or tutor,
alerted
us
process it
know,
the
13
That
process
There were some 30-some student-
talked
It
we moved ahead in
didn I t show
end
told us
~vhen
one
that: don't
If you talk
to a
you could do the same that
there
was some
18
You have to realize that each of these
19
students
20
information
21
specifically
22
investigated.
23
'Nas
asked
to
regarding
told
COoe
that
that
and
system.
they
were
give
us
They were
not
I'
being
Their eligibility was not in question,
24
and their scholarship was
25
when
a
student-athlete
in no
then
jeopardy.
But
notified us that
I
23
1
some students may have violated NCl'<.A
2
time ~vhen
3
another issue, it created
4
issues that we had to face.
5
At that
rules at a
supposedly helping us resolve
he was
a
series
point in
of complex
time, we decided we
6
had more than a personnel issue, we had
7
issue,
8
help us.
9
determined that there was inappropriate behavior
10
and
we
We
Mr. Smrt and his firm to
hired
went
an NCAA
through
that
process and
in our minds with a specific tutor.
11
We looked
at
other
12
We could
l3
were other tutors involved.
14
issues involved.
find no conclusive evidence that there
We have a system at Florida State that
15
runs
16
grades of
17
students.
the
grades
of
the course,
We
looked
each
athlete against the
and the
at
grades of other
those
files and we
18
determ~r.eQ
19
spring
20
well,
of
that there
'2007,
actually
that
in
o~e
was
there
the
fall
section
in the
were anomalies--
there
were some
I' 21
anomalies, but
22
to cause an alarm.
they were not significant enough
23
In
24
significant.
25
a faculty member
the
spring
of
'07 1
they
were
What we found out was that we had
that
was
offering
an online
I'
C&llH
24
1
course,
2
for a number of years and
3
had allowed
4
the final exam,
5
exam, and
6
and tests
7
grade.
that
had been offering that same course
in previous semesters
students to work together,
to work as a group
to print
on the final
not only the final exam but all exams
and
I
8
It
turn
was
those
in
perfectly
9
violation of the
student's
10
violation, quite
frankly,
11
the course.
and
receive a
acceptable
honor
of
code
and no
and no
the guidelines of
12
The
13
changed that.
14
but he did
15
There was no requirement that a student take the
16
test in a secured testing site.
17
They could
faculty
He
change
member
subsequently
did not change the syllabus,
the
online
take
it
test procedure.
from
their dorm
~8
room,
19
sign on to.
20
used Blackboard
21
began talking to other students and
22
did they do and when did they do it?
23
they
24
circumstances, there was no violation.
25
~ake
it from any computer that they could
I t did go ttrough a proces s tha t
worked
If, on
like most institutions use.
as
a
group
~ve
v.Je
asking what
under
Because if
certain
the other hand, if they did it
I'
I
25
in the fall or spring of
'07, and
the rules of
2
the course
3
was
4
understand that a rogue tutor had basically made
5
copies of the
6
memory, and as he worked with students gave some
7
of those answers to the various
8
received more answers than others.
and the
potentially
test,
As
9
a
we
testing were changed,
violation.
committed
interviewed
We
there
came
those
to
tests to
students.
those
Some
30-some
10
students before,
11
started back
12
of those students did receive help.
13
difficult time to define exactly what help was.
14
with them, we determined that some
Some
students
15
with the
16
Answer A,
17
students sat in
tutor
Bf
that we went through before and
saying,
This
actually took the test
yes,
you
should mark
or whatever was appropriate.
the
was a
Testing
Center
Some
and heard
people
19
discussing
tests,
and
marked
papers
accordingly.
20
So, we began to realize that
we had a
21
problem with
22
member.
23
particularly
24
grapevine sometimes works better than e-mail.
25
that one
As you
might
an
The system
course, that one faculty
expect,
Athletic
and
the
any university,
Departmen t,
the
students started
26
talking to
one another.
The NCAA rules, as we
2
understand them from the
Enforcement Committee,
3
state
4
violation we were obligated to sit
5
from specific participation in the sport.
that
6
when
This
was
7
term! so obviously
8
sports
9
that point in time.
where
10
much
11
violation?
do
12
we
we
knew
in
that
the
our
sit
The
them
for?
on those
began
16
other issues became into play.
What is the
the
precedence, ranged
15
those
was
NCAA
from a game to a full
on
What
Enforcement, those
14
based
became how
TtJith
violations!
17
and spring
was
question
13
make
a
that student
winter
emphasis
was
individuals were participating at
As we worked
to
there
season depending.
decisions,
difference
As tile
all kinds of
in
one gamer
18
two
19
determining factor?
20
In some cases students and student-athletes went
21
directly to the honor court.
games,
22
five
Some
games
or
ten?
What was the
How did you determine this?
students
went
directly
to the
23
faculty mernber.
24
pass,
25
faculty member based upon whatever conversations
if
you
Some
want
"to
students basically had a
call
it
that,
from a
:&llH
27
they had with that particular faculty member.
2
began
vIe
to
submit
to
the
3
Reinstatement Committee
reinstatements after we
4
had
some
5
contests,
6
finally
7
Reinstatement
8
with these, we want to batch them and do them as
9
a group.
sat
students
or
for
whatever
that
became
it
number
happened to be, and
cumbersome
Committee
of games,
said
because
the
we canlt keep up
We said fine.
10
In addition to that, while all of this
11
is going on, certain athletes were
12
~vell,
13
talk to so and so, and we had that issue to deal
14
with.
if
15
you are
going to bust me,
then saying,
you need to
We had some coaches that said, well,
16
am not
sure we
17
because
~.."hat
are getting
I
the fair treatment
about this team or that team?
We,
18
ir. essence,
19
could go
20
come
21
consultants
22
decision
23
get some
24
those student-athletes.
25
had a
to a
through
!....
I
system
fac~lty
our
and
member,
system
and
where students
the honor court,
talk
to
the
be faced with some preliminary
ith us trying
kind of
going
to go
to the
NCAA and
across-the-board treatment of
We came together in, I believe it was,
-=-&llH 28
1
October, remembering
2
and students left
3
those
4
difficult.
students
5
that surrmer
campus,
at
and
that
6
athletes
came
back,
\ve
7
talking
to
the
NCAA
8
Reinstatement
9
"orking.
We can't get
when student-
down
and
began
Enforcement
you know,
to
to find
in time became
fall
sat
said,
trying
point
Basically, in the
and
came in there
the
and
this is not
bottom
of this
10
without some understanding of what the penalties
11
are going to be.
12
\'Ie had
the
probability
of
13
card
14
different
15
priorities.
16
played.
17
sports! all involved in that process.
being
played
by
some
students
were
We
the
We
had
had
major
the race
athletes,
getting
gender
sports
saying
different
card
being
versus
minor
18
~'Je
had
some
students that vlere very
19
forthcoming and said, you know,
20
definition of
21
I did that.
22
do that.
23
time to really
24
than he said-she said,
25
if
that is your
inappropriate actions,
then, yes,
We had others who said no,
I didn't
We didn't have a way at that point in
know
t"hat
was
happening other
so to speak.
At that point in time,
the provost and
~&llH
29
1
the Technology
2
did what
we believe
3
history.
Because
4
every student
5
there was
6
it, where they took it l
7
everybody
8
payrolls with
9
tutors were in the room
10
11
Department came
together and we
is unpreceder.ted in NCAA's
this
was
an
online course,
had to take that test online, and
a computer
took
it,
record of
when they took
who was in the room when
and
we
then
cross-filed
that, and we could determine what
when
who
took
it and
what happened.
Most of
the time
you don't have that
12
type of information in a paper-pencil test.
13
simply know
14
but you don't know to the
15
punches a button and says it is A, Bl C or D.
16
17
the hour
Whe~
of the room
a
a~d
that the
You
test was taken,
effect when
a person
student is sitting in the back
says
I
heard
someone holler
18
across the
19
such is, and they had already
20
C and
21
well, if it was
22
that and
change my
23
So, I am
guilty,
24
actually sharing
25
type of things that the NCAA had to have.
room the
the answer
answer to
was Sf
number such and
marked,
let's say
and that student says
inappropriate
for
me
to hear
answer, then I guess I did.
versus
the
student
that information.
who was
That's the
~&LH
30
We knew
thac
program that
information
figured it out.
2
created a
3
with the
4
happened here
5
most honest are being penalized.
NCAA
and
because we
said,
you
know,
We sat
what has
is the students who have been the
We came to a conclusion that we needed
6
7
to go
back and re-interview all of the students
8
in those
9
we had,
classes, showing
them the information
and say do you really want to say this,
if you
10
with the understanding that
11
did something inappropriate, not trying to split
12
hairs and determine how bad it
13
vJould
14
other hand, you chose
15
then you
16
State.
17
receive
a
certain
was or
penalty.
to go
said yes,
not,
I
you
If, on the
a different route,
would lose your eligibility at Florida
When we went through
that process, we
18
came up with the number that you see before you.
19
In addition
20
began to
21
term I
22
contaminated
23
the spring semester.
that,
talk with
think
we
the
provost
the Faculty
began
course,
to
use
and myself
Senate and the
is
we
had a
particularly a section in
We made the determination, and I think
24
25
to
it is
probably somewhat
unprecedented, that_ 'I/e
31
stude~t-athletesf
1
would take all
2
what
3
retake that course
4
violated some procedure or not.
grade
5
they
The
made,
and they would have to
Hhether
Faculty
regardless of
they
Senate
admitted they
met
on that and
6
agreed, and we vacated that course
7
only.
8
process had we not been working
9
the NCAA Enforcement and Reinstatement, where we
10
could sit down and say He need you to be totally
11
honest, and here is the information, we probably
12
would not be here today.
13
So,
for athletes
we think that as you go through this
as closely with
Probably, what would have happened is,
14
because
15
certain athletes would have
16
counsel.
17
issues raised from parents I
it
had
There
already
would
started
begun to
to
happen,
get legal
have been all kinds of
media and everywhere
wou~d
18
else, and
we
have never been able to get
19
to the conclusion that we
got
to
and
that we
I' I
20
believe we have identified those individuals who
21
did get
22
inappropriate assistance.
inappropriate
We believe
23
24
identify
from
25
individuals
who
a
we believe
behavior
we have
staffing
participated
also been able to
standpoint
in
giving
those
that
~&llH
32
help,
reminding
you
that
was
in
some
counseled
student-athlete
3
course even though they didn't want the course.
The student-athletes
5
with
the
idea
6
"cheat".
7
They
8
athletes
9
graduation.
this
inappropriate
did
It is
is
how I am going to
of
the
course
for
not a required course, it is an
12
categories.
13
who had 4.0's and
students who
14
was not
that
does
count
that people
15
gain eligibility.
in
several
There were student involved in this
a course
Had we known
spring that
Most
this
need
elective
17
they cheated.
help.
11
16
course
not
this
didn't start off
We don't really believe
got
10
of
take
a
2
4
to
cases
we know
the
had 2.0's.
were put into to
information
now, and
It
in the
had we chosen to
II
18
vacate that course
the~,
had we known it, all of
those students would have been eligible to go to
20
summer school and retake
21
possibility of being I'ineligible",
Part of
22
a class
and avoid any
the conversation
that we had
and Reinstatement
was that if
23
with Enforcement
24
we went
25
and that matrix, and we had
through this and developed that profile
a student
who came
I .
I
[&llH
33
1
forward
and
honestly
gave us the information,
2
that would not affect
3
was part of the understanding that we worked off
4
of.
their eligibility.
That
So, we have gotten here today what you
5
6
see before you is that information.
7
the University
8
personnel matter,
9
they ,.ould be helpful to us, could be helpful to
was faced
with is
we advised
us, and
11
that
12
eligibility for their scholarship.
they
We
13
them at that point in time
could
told
we started a
the students that
10
didn't tell
The problem
be
jeopardizing
them
their
just the opposite.
We
14
then went back and reassessed where we were, and
15
told the
16
were.
17
talking about,
students the
exact truth
of where we
We defined exactly vJhat semesters we were
because under certain guidelines
'-8
they could literally take a copy of the
19
and write
20
violation.
the exam
test in
with that copy and be in no
It is not something we are proud of,
Ii 21
it is
22
course.
not something
the way
we want
to run a
23
The provost has had conversations with
24
the faculty member, but we would remind you that
25
we
have
a
unionized
faculty
and
a
union
I
I I
I-i
\ ' I
34
procedure that
2
we had
to recognize.
We had an
honor code that we had to recognize.
3
y.]e had a code
of conduct
that we had
4
to
5
interviewed once and said
6
presented
7
different and defined inappropriate
8
a different way, recanted that and then decided,
9
yes,
We
recognize.
with
had
data
students who had been
one thing,
that
then when
shOl,ed
something
behavior in
I did.
10
We had some students
who
came
to us
11
with their attorney or their mother or father or
12
person!
13
forthcoming.
14
information,
15
something I shouldn't have.
other,
significant
when
Others,
said
yeah,
16
But
l7
judgment, while this is
the
and
I
bottom
tvere
they
probably
line
saw
did
very
the
do
is that, in my
an embarrassing process
18
for the
State of
19
In
20
institutions in
particular,
Florida and for Florida State
because
isn I t
it
hOl'l
most
the State of Florida operate or
I I
21
we operate, we have learned a lot.
22
I am teaching
an
just
how the thing works.
see
course this
23
semester
24
converted
25
history course into an online course, and we are
a
to
online
political
science
in
a
I
Florida
1
35
I' 1
now going
2
put everybody
3
randomly select questions
4
the same questions each time.
through a
We
5
~n
process to,
first of all,
a monitored testing situation,
have
done
seen those
as
to using
a nunber of things and
6
you have
7
actions.
8
been as diligent as we were
9
when we found it,
But I
opposed
in some
of the corrective
really believe that had we not
in getting
on this
had we not created the profile
10
and matrix that we
11
attorneys or
12
NCAA not been as helpful to us as
13
\vould not be able to sit here today and tell you
14
as definitively as we can exactly what happened.
15
could
whomever they
We would have
16
we could
17
we are.
show
not say
~vi
students, their
wanted, and had the
strong
they were, we
suspicions,
but
thout a doubt this is where
I think if you read the report you will
fi~d
19
that basically that is what it says.
You
will
find
there
is very little
20
difference of opinion on the facts
21
The outcome
22
of conversation.
23
very seriously.
24
25
of the case.
of the case probably is some degree
Florida
Quite frankly,
are going to do.
We
State is
I don't
hope you
taking this
know what you
will accept the
36
1
penalties that
2
really doesn't matter because we are going to do
3
that no matter
The
4
we have placed upon ourself.
~"hat
you do.
issue
that
we
had
believed
6
share
7
but
8
those.
9
the student-athletes in this case.
the
the
The
also
needed
think,
share in
facts
13
we are.
CHAI~~N
of
THOMAS:
that
Chairman,
Florida State's standpoint how
17
the
Mr.
12
16
to
University was more culpable than
basically
15
needed to
responsibility of their actions,
11
14
was that we
student-athletes
University
I
10
the
that
5
in
It
the
is
matter, and from
we got
to where
"hank you, President
I'letherell.
Mr. Lyons,
opening statement?
do
you
wish
to
make an
;YJR. LYONS:
18
19
time r
~:ir.
I will forego that at this
I'
Chairman.
20
CHAIR.'1AN THmIAS:
Thank you.
21
Mr. Didion, does
the
22
preliminary
23
Allegation I?
24
25
conunents
MR. DIDION:
staff
turn
before
Mr.
Chair,
Hargrove's turn is before us.
have any
I
to
think Mr.
:~&llH
37
CHAI~~~N
THOMAS:
2
~1r.
3
MR. HARGROVE:
4
CHAI~'lAN
5
Thank you, sir.
THOMAS:
MR. HARGROVE:
I
do apologize for
That
is okay.
I kind
of figured they were going to go first any,"ay.
Many years
8
9
Hargrove.
overlooking you.
6
7
I am sorry.
ago, when I first became a
lawyer, I had an opportunity to try a
case, the
10
first case
11
It was a bench trial.
12
judge who
13
lawyer in the case of Gideon versus Wainwright.
14
I
ever
tried in front of the judge.
had denied
Mr. Gideon
It was
in front
of the
Mr. Gideon his right to a
was
a
criminal defendant
15
who vJas convicted and \-'las staying at the Florida
16
State motel.
17
Department
Mr. Wainwright was the head of the
of
Corrections
and
had the key to
18
that motel.
~lr.
19
Gideon
trial level.
had asked
20
at the
21
that right,
22
Mr. Gideon
23
established the principle
24
entitled to counsel.
25
The reason
went up
for an attorney
The trial judge denied him
to the
was allowed
Supreme Court,
to have a lawyer.
that
an
and
That
indigent is
I tell you that is because
C&11H 38
1
of the side story
2
about.
3
and
4
unnerved and being intimidated.
That
there
T
am going
to tell you
experience for me was unnerving,
is
This
5
that
distinction
a
is
an
between
unnerving position to be
6
in, both myself and more particularly
7
The side
8
particular
9
opposing counsel.
10
story is
judge
I went
was
the
fishing
12
learned
13
counsel.
the
of
I had just
fishing buddy of opposing
This was a bench trial.
14
buddy
into court that day, the judge
liked to chew on an unlit cigar, and
was
Dr. Monk.
that I had learned that this
11
he
being
balance it all out.
There was no
15
jury to
I was unnerved.
I
16
wasn't intimidated because I had had the benefit
17
of process of discovery, depositions, attendance
18
at interviews,
19
unnerved at the sideline events.
20
So,
those kinds of things.
anyway,
~ve
get
But I was
involved in the
21
trial and I called opposing counsel's client.
22
was representing
23
I called the opposing
24
had sued my agency.
25
I
the state
called
agency at the time.
counsel's
her
I
client.
They
as an adverse witness,
I
:'=&2.1H
39
i
,
I
1
and '.-.,reen I got her on
2
leading
3
"He is asking leading questions."
questions.
::: said,
4
as
an
the stand
I began askirrg
Opposing counsel objected.
"Well,
her
6
leading questions."
Opposing counsel then said,
7
"Well,
established
8
hostile."
9
witness
have called
T
5
he
adverse
Judge,
hasn't
said,
I
"Judge,
She
and I can ask her
that
don I t
I
she
is
have
to
is hostile because I have
10
establish that.
11
called her as a different kind of witness."
12
I
13
rephrase
14
without argument."
said,
"SO
my
that
question,
So, I
15
16
not ask
l7
asked two
we
can
so
But
move along, I will
we
can
move along
rephrased my question and I did
leading questions.
Well,
after I had
or three questions, the lady got mad.
18
She got real mad.
19
on his cigar, and he said, 'IWell, Frank, I think
20
Mr.
21
hostile.'1
22
Hargrove
has
The judge leaned back, chewed
established
that
she
is
She was hostile.
My point
is this:
From where vIe sit,
23
this is not an intimidating circumstance,
24
an
25
unnerving circumstance is because
unnerving
one.
The
reason
that
it is
is
an
we don't have
L.&llH 40
1
to be here.
2
surmise why.
3
to,
I
Mr. Goldsmith isn't here, and I can
He has basically said I don't have
am not going to,
Adam Wright is not here',
4
5
Dr. Monk and myself,
6
hands kind of tied behind our back.
I would
7
8
that Joyce
9
NCAA,
I
10
will
say
11
professional,
12
complaints.
14
have
said
it
to
'us to
be in
are here
take this
Thompson,
But it
13
and we
We are here,
who
w'ith our
opportunity to say
is
representing the
this behind her back and I
her
face,
helpful.
I
is an
she
has
got
have
having no subpoena power to get at
the whole truth, not just slivers of it,
16
be
l7
the system that we have
to
no
unnerving situation for
15
able
been
cross-examine anybody.
here.
But
to not
But that's
it
is an
18
unnerving situation
19
at in this forum everything.
At the
20
to
Dr.
to be
end
Monk,
of
in f,..,her.
this
can! t
!de
hearing,
get
as it
I believe that you will
21
relates
22
have much more clarity than you have now.
23
you have a plasma screen vision?
24
The reason you won't is because we have
25
had our
No,
Will
you won't.
kind of
hands tied behind our backs, because we
,
I
C&llH
41
have not been able to get at some
2
that
we
ultimately
3
because of the forum we are in.
So,
4
would
the question,
of the issues
like to get at just
then,
is why
are we
Why does it matter to us to be here when
5
here?
6
we donlt have to
7
number two, in a forum where just because of the
8
nature of the forum,
9
utilize those
10
be
number
here,
we have
one?
not been
And,
able to
things that let us get at all the
information.
I would reiterate
11
12
given us
all the
13
it
14
complaint.
I
is
attempting to
describe
16
from
17
intimidated.
relates
our
to
that
the
NCAA has
information that they have as
Dr.
am
perspective
That
is
not
my
complaining.
I
am
Monk.
not
to
you
the difference
being unnerved and being
We are unnerved.
It is a difficult
18
position
because we don1t know all of the
20
know that there is information that
21
going to
22
like
23
grapevine,
24
grapevine.
25
How do I
President
and
Do
I
know that?
Wetherell
I
have
have
the
be in
i~formation.
19
get.
to
I
you are not
Well, just
stated,
there
is a
talked
within
that
ability
to
compel
I'
C::&llH
42
1
testimony from that grapevine?
2
forum.
3
So, we are unnerved.
But
4
canlt
I
do not.
I
again,
I
I do not in this
present it
have
5
here?
6
am
7
though we don't have to be.
8
reasons.
asked why are we
You have got to be asking that.
going
to
tell
Number
9
you
one,
to you.
why
Well, I
we are here, even
We are here for two
Dr. Nonk firmly believes
10
that
11
difficulties
12
have in an academic setting.
13
to how
14
she has been portrayed
15
who has
been identified in the media as someone
16
who has
done something
17
wrong.
good
you
she has
folks
that
need
to
learning-disabled
know
the
students
Dr. Monk, contrary
been portrayed, and I would add
-- she
is the
only one
horribly fraudulent and
You have
18
got my
response.
s~e
19
going to belabor it.
But
20
is
professional,
21
submit
22
professional.
23
She
her
duty
to
as
you
a
she
is
thinks
you
ought
24
circumstance that
25
students in
exists
t~at
believes
that
and
the
to
am not
I
T
it
"lIould
consummate
know
the
for learning-disabled
an academic setting at a collegiate
43
1
level.
That is number one.
Number two, she does not like the fact
2
3
that she
has been
portrayed as unprofessional.
4
She is a professional.
5
that.
6
her, yes.
She
wants you
Those are the two reasons.
to know
I have helped
7
I am the dirty word, because
8
lawyer, but my objective here today, I hope -- I
9
am going to step
10
that
you
11
bypass me.
12
will
She is
aside,
take
and
the
here,
I
will
13
question you ask.
14
as long as
you
15
interrupt.
I don't intend to.
16
opportunity to add a
17
sincerely hope
opportunity
she
I am the
to just
answer every
She will answer the questions
want
to
ask
corr~ent
But my purpose here
them.
I
won't
I would like the
every now and then.
is not
a purpose
[
~8
that is
typically perceived
19
lawyer.
My purpose here is
20
is not
21
hamstrung nature under which we come
22
for those
23
and only those two reasons.
24
25
to obfuscate.
two reasons
as being
one of a
to facilitate.
:ct
I will explain to you the
before you
that I have articulated,
So, you have got my response.
the skeleton
,
of Dr. Brenda Monk.
That is
The blood and
['
::&llH
44
1
the sinews and the
2
here.
3
though I don't believe that at the end of it you
4
are going to have a crystal-clear picture.
I
would
rest of
urge
the story
you
is right
to pursue it,
even
It is kind of like many people in this
5
6
room.
I note they are probably around
7
age as
8
channels on a television and then you had a dot.
9
Well,
We are
11
dot.
12
of
13
works.
14
that.
15
getting it.
gro\"ling up, you had 12
at the beginning stage of that
You will have a
this
given
but
the
This is
And I
clear picture
nature
the person
am not
here to
of
hO\"l
at the end
this system
who can facilitate
prevent you from
So, please feel free to bypass me.
Yes,
16
mel
\"las
that dot became ESPN.
10
l7
When I
me.
the same
she
you have
is represented
free access
by a lawyer,
to her.
We know
18
that she doesn't have to
be
here,
but
she is
19
going to stay here as long as you want her here.
20
So, thank you for -- no, I am not going to thar.k
21
you for the opportunity.
I agree with President Wetherell, this
22
23
is not an opportunity, this is
not an enjoyable
24
thing.
25
answer your questions honestly and as completely
But we are here with a determination to
C&llH
4S
1
as possible.
2
those answers, please feel free.
3
4
As many times as you want to hear
CHAIRMAN
Mr.
Didion,
6
preliminary
7
Allegation 1?
8
10
Thank
you,
Mr.
Hargrove.
5
9
THO~IAS:
So, thank you.
Chair.
does
the staff have any
corrunents
before
MR.
DIDION:
Yes.
Ms.
Thompson
is
we
turn
to
Thank you, Mr.
going
to
make the
opening statement for the enforcement staff.
11
CHAI~IAN
12
MS.
THOMAS:
THOMPSON:
Okay.
Ms. Thompson.
Members
of
the
13
Co~mittee,
this case primarily involves academic
14
fraud
the
15
moni tor its
16
the
17
Department.
in
failure
of
activities of
Athletics
Academic
the
institution to
its employees \vithin
Support
Services
The crux of
18
19
failure
of
the
this
case
Athletic
rests
in the
Academic
Support
I, 20
Services Department to
timely
communicate with
I
I, 21
the
institution's
22
learned
23
contributed
24
alleged
25
case.
of
and
compliance
potential
to
the
reported
NCAA
scope
staff
when
violations
it
which
and severity of the
violations
within
this
I,
C&2.1H
46
What we
C
that
intend to
the
focal
show the Committee
2
today is
point
of
this case
3
involves
4
affected a total of
5
sports, and involves NCAA bylaws governing extra
6
benefits, academic fraud and unethical conduct.
I' three
61
the
with
actions
student-athletes
The actions of
7
whose
individuals
the
in 11
involved parties,
institution's
failure
to
8
combined
9
monitor certain aspects of the Athletic Academic
10
Support Services
11
major infractions
12
core
13
protection of academic integrity.
mission
unit,. resulted in this serious
case,
of
,Vi th that
14
issues
said,
in
we
address
16
proceed with Allegation No.1.
CHAIRl'1AN THOMAS:
contradicts the
Association
15
17
the
the
which
are
and
the
prepared to
this case and ready to
Let's
proceed with
18
Alleg~tion
19
question.
No.
Yes,
1
Professor Potuto has a
i: MS. POTUTO:
20
21
clarify the
22
opening
23
unethical
24
improper academic
25
fraudulent
Yes,
I
wou~d
just like to
allegation itself, if I could.
describes
paragraph
conduct
academic
The
fraud,
when they knowingly provided
assistance
academic
credit
and
as
arranged for
a result of 61
( I
I'
I 1 I
C&llH
47
students.
2
Subparagraph
(a)
does
not
it.
3
academic fraud
4
questions.
5
and,
6
do
7
student-athlete's
8
constitute the kind of
9
is academic fraud under the bylaws?
One,
t~vo,
you
whether
if you
believe
MS.
10
citation to
it
have
So,
I have two
should
be there,
contend it shouldn I t be,
that
editing
term
an
portions
papers
does
then
of
a
not
academic assistance that
THOMPSON:
We
did
not
allege
11
unethical conduct in
12
we believed that the actions in Subparagraph (a)
13
involved extra
14
conduct
15
allege unethical conduct.
16
17
benefit
actions.
MS.
conclusion.
Subparagraph
So,
POTUTO:
I would
actions,
that's
That
(a), because
not unethical
why
gives
we didn't
me
your
like know why you believe
I'
I l8
that
editing
19
papers, which
20
constitute academic conduct under 10.1?
providi~g
MR.
21
assistance
on
term
is what you list in (a)1 does not
DIDION:
that
reviet-Jed the
information
23
didn't believe that
24
academic
25
activities that took place, we believe were more
it
The
to
we
22
fraud.
led
When
Subparagraph (a), we
rose
to
editing
the
level of
and the typing
I~
I
I
I,
.:::'&llH
48
in line being covered by the extra benefit bylaw
2
and not ethical conduct bylaw.
3
MS. POTUTO:
we
Well, I will
get to them
4
when
5
substantive
6
occurred,
7
think that doesn't rise to the level of academic
8
assistance that is improper under 10.1.
go
the
editing
allegation,
was
that
you
us
assume,
then,
agrees ~... ith
10
Corrunittee ultimately
11
is an
12
to redo the
13
paragraph
14
conduct and academic fraud.
15
it as anything else; is that correct?
assumption right
16
17
stem
the
contend
captures
that
the
you, and that
now, we would then have
paragraph,
MR. DIDION:
correct.
what
so I can get a better sense of why you
Let
9
into
this
because
all
It
under
the stem
unethical
doesn't capture
We may have to.
That is
~IS.
18
Committee
POTUTO:
Without
is
to
going
assuming where
19
the
go on any finding
20
whatsoever! if the Committee were to accept that
21
(a)
22
also make a finding with regard to it, and again
23
I am
24
to get at the
25
read,
is
not academic
not prejudging
would
way
assistance under 10.1,
and
anything, I am just trying
the
finding
would
have to
the University agree that that stem
:::&llH 49
paragraph has to separate out extra benefit from
2
the academic misconduct, the unethical conduct?
Obviously, in l-(al, we do
i'IR. SMRT:
3
4
not believe
it is
academic fraud,
5
talk about
6
fraud.
7
paragraph does not say extra benefits.
8
the bylaw citation is
why we
and we will
don't believe it is academic
That being said, I agree that that first
MS.
9
captures
10
paragraph
11
misconduct.
12
POTUTO:
Yes,
it
all
but
However,
the
under
first
academic
Mr. Hargrove, do you understand what I
13
am
talking
14
finding, not
15
that stem
16
academic misconduct,
17
least
that
about?
We
prejudging
are
not
anything,
making
it
any
is just
paragraph right now captures l-(al as
the
and that's
enforcement
not the
way at
staff believes it
18
should be constituted.
MR.
19
20
concern.
I
POTUTO:
22
question is in
23
reads,
24
was only exam questions in
25
answers carne later.
the
I
appreciate
your
have got it.
MS.
21
HARGROVE:
Paragraph
Okay.
(c).
Then my second
The
way this
study guide that you say was created
'05-06 1
and then the
C&llH
50
1
Is that
Because later you
accurate?
~Ionk
2
talk about Dr.
3
the
4
already in there.
5
out.
6
just have questions initially or were there some
7
answers in it the first time around?
anstvers I
which
sounds
So,
as though they are
I am just
trying to find
I think initially when
MS. THOMPSON:
the
vJright to review
As you understand it, does the study guide
8
9
asking Mr.
study
guide
was
created
it
10
questions, but
11
there were answers in the study guide.
12
~lS.
had
just
later on as the years progressed
POTUTO:
is in
Okay.
Then
my third
13
question here
that same paragraph.
14
understood the materials, there
15
questions that the professor used, and they were
16
randomly selected out with
17
test year, is that right, or was it particularly
was
a
As I
bank of
regard to particular
18
tests?
In
19
other
I
the
hlas
random
20
selection,
21
button,
22
Dr. Thomas went online he might have a different
23
set of questions from
24
same set of questions for the year?
25
whenever
words,
went online and hit the
I would get one set of questions, but if
~lR.
ABELE:
t~e
bank,
In
or was
looking
it the
over
the
\,
[&llH
51
1
material, but I have
not
2
study
refer
3
approximately 70 questions
4
up, but all 40 were given to all of the students
5
during that particular exam period.
you
guide
MS. POTUTO:
6
regard
to
seen
that particular
to,
of
Okay.
there
which
Then
were
40 showed
my question
7
with
the wording of the allegation,
8
then, is the
9
guide contained correct answers for the previous
last
"The
line.
amended study
10
exam of the online course,
11
the questions on the existing exams."
By
12
that,
did the study guide
14
all
15
have been on the spring
16
saying that
17
questions and all answers?
questions,
do you mean -- well,
then,
13
the
several of which were
contain all
and
the answers to
then 40 of them would
'06
exam,
or
are you
the study guide did not include all
Are you following my
18
19
questior.?
~IS.
THOMPSON:
I
thirck so.
20
asking whether or not the study
21
all the questions and all the answers.
22
MS. POTUTO:
23
70, then does the study
24
fewer than 70?
25
MS.
'You are
guide contained
That is right.
THOMPSON:
guide
have
If it was
all
Initially
70 or
in
the
~&llH
52
1
beginning it
did
not!
2
progress
it
did
contain all the questions and
3
all the answers.
4
MS. POTUTO:
but
Do
as
you
the
years did
know
whether by
5
the time
6
which I take
7
improper assistance
8
study guide have 70 questions and 70 answers?
it
is
the
first
time
that the
started to happen, did that
Yes,
MS. THOMPSON:
9
10
we are talking about, the fall of '06,
Ms.
Patuto l
it
did.
MS. POTUTO:
11
All right.
12
get down to several
13
really all of them that were on the test were in
14
the study
15
guide than were on the test.
16
17
guide,
Does
of them
Then when you
there
everybody
without making any
were on
were more
the test,
in the study
understand that again
decision
about
findings or
18
anything
else?
19
language
20
understand?
to
We
be
wi-,-l
MR. HARGROVE:
22
~IS.
one more,
24
start
25
year.
and that
is in
saying
during
out
But
I
thought
everybody
We understand it.
Okay.
POTU TO:
to amend this
Does
clear.
21
23
have
Then
(d), Page
I
have got
1-2.
You
the 2006-07 academic
the
summer
was
also
I.
I
53
involved,
2
that
were
there
at
some
athletes.
3
MS. THOMPSON:
December,
4
MS. POTUTO:
Yes
5
least
summer,
'07?
no.
Was the
'07 1 part of that?
Yes,
there were a few
6
MS. THOMPSON:
7
student-athletes in the beginning
8
of '07 that received impermissible assistance.
MS.
9
POTUTO:
10
the academic
year is
11
are
about
12
right?
talking
14
amend
15
'07.
that
16
17
I typically think that
fall and
the
MS. THOMPSON:
13
what
is
language
of the summer
entire
spring, but you
year;
Yes, I am.
to
And
is that
we can
include the summer of
NS. POTUTO:
I just wanted
alleged
what it is that everybody
is
to be sure
18
agrees that the facts
19
Thatls it.
20
are
going
to
point to.
I
I have got it cleared.
CHAIRc'lAN
THO~lAS:
Any other questions
I. 21
from
the
Committee?
22
Allegation 1.
23
MS.
24
make two corrections as
25
Summary
THOMPSON:
regarding
We
will
proceed
with
I would just like to
it relates
typographical
to the Case
errors,
if I
I
I
"
C&llH
54
,
I
~
may.
Under the individuals to
2
Page
No.
3
addition to the learning specialist she was also
4
the
5
Support Services.
6
that correction.
3,
under
be mentioned, on
Brenda
Monk's
name,
in
I
Assistant
Director
Then
7
Case
I
So,
on
for Athletics Academic
just
Page
to make
2-1 of the enforcement
the
Summary,
wanted
number
before the
B
staff's
9
bylaw citation should be "2" as opposed to "5".
11
I can't
12
already there.
flip
the
14
enforcement
staff's
15
before
bylaw
16
opposed to "5".
the
MS.
pages
as
THOMPSON:
~lS.
13
17
Please say that again.
MS. JENNINGS:
10
Case
citation
POTUTO:
On
fast
as
you are
Page
2-1 of the
Summary,
the number
should
!fIe have "2".
be
"211 as
~S.
18
JENNINGS:
We don't have any bylaw
19
citation.
The constitution is cited there.
20
where is there a bylaw citation?
MR. DIDION:
21
constitution.
You
are correct.
Before
you
see
22
the
23
Constitution 2.8.1, it is Allegation No.
24
should be corrected to Allegation No.2.
25
MS. JENNINGS:
I'
But
I t is
NCAA
5 that
Oh. Thanks.
I'
I \
C&llH
2
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
1
corrections?
~IS.
3
You may proceed.
I
THOMPSON:
parties present
have consulted with
4
all the
5
the permission of the Committee to
6
of
7
separately,
8
collectively.
the
today and I would like
subparagraphs
if
we
CHAI&~N
9
MS.
10
impermissible benefits
13
former learning
14
former academic tutor Adam
17
it
1
Monk
1
to
Overall,
violations
of
and unethical conduct by
specialist Dr.
relates
during the 2004-05 through
Dr.
opposed
Okay.
involves
12
16
No.
No.
Yes.
THOMPSON:
Allegation
As
as
may,
THOMAS:
address each
Allegation
in
11
15
Any other
Brenda Monk and
Wright.
to
Subparagraph (a),
the 2006-07 academic
provided improper editing and
18
typi~g
assistance on her
19
least
three
20
had learning disabilities.
21
Monk's
word
processor
to at
student-athletes whom she believed
actions
22
legislation
on
23
institutional
policy
which
24
accommodations
for
learning
25
athletes would
be provided
extra
violated
benefits
required
NCAA's and
an
that any
disabled student-
through the Student
L&11H
56
1
Disability Resource Center!
Regarding
2
known as the SORe.
Subparagraph
3
enforcement staff
4
agreement
5
notes that the number of occasions in which Monk
6
provided
7
unknown.
the
that
she
and
and
editing
disagrees
provided
that
was
the institution
assistance
the
improper.
Therefore,
12
provide improper typing
13
when
14
student-athletes' rough drafts, develop outlines
15
for
16
their thoughts within their papers?
the
Committee
Subparagraph (a).
and
word
student-athletes'
Regarding
this
assistance
consider concerning
her
for
is
11
used
issue
are in
there
she
one
institution
10
17
is
the
facts,
typing
Monk
8
9
on
and
the
(a) ,
this
to
Did Monk
editing assistance
processor
papers,
issue,
to
type
and edited
although
the
18
enforcement
19
student-athletes
20
papers
21
could
22
athletes involved
23
four points to support its position.
only
is
the
which
greater
readily
Committee's
that the number of
believes
,lonk
typed
than
and edited
three, the staff
three
identify
student-
in this matter! and relies on
Point number
24
25
for
staff
one:
attention
The
to
staff directs
Florida State's
57
located
is
in
1
institutional
policy
which
2
Attachment
of
enforcement staff's Case
3
Summary, and Institution's Exhibit No. 1-16.
A
5
State's
policy
6
student
seeks
7
learning
8
themselves, be
9
to
is
indisputable
accommodations
11
staff.
be
his
or her
identify
approved by SDRe
accommodations,
must
Florida
that if a
must
registered and
receive
accommodations
in
for
they
disability,
10
that
believes
staff
The
4
the
arranged
the
and
by
the SDRe
Further! Dr. Bea At'lOniyi, the director
12
13
of the SDRe, is
14
is
not
an
extremely clear
accommodation
learning disabilities,
and
for
that
in that typing
students
Monk
with
was not
16
given permission from anyone from the SORe staff
17
to
provide
accommodations
or
services
to
18
students with learning or medical disabilities.
Moreover, if a student with a learning
19
20
disability qualifies for a
21
suggested in
this case,
22
only
on
23
should
24
accommodation.
25
entity have
Point
Florida
provided
scribe, as
Monk has
then again SORe is the
State's and
campus
approved
such
that an
I number
two:
Three
student-
58
1
athletes involved
2
Monk
3
Specifically,
4
May
typed
30,
and
matter reported that
and
with
his
the
August
institl:tion that Nonk typed
7
because he
8
recall
9
papers Ner2 typed.
or
2008,
for him
But he could not
courses
11
5th, 2007,
12
help him type his papers
13
during the
14
some changes within his papers.
for
interview that
which the
sometimes fIon.k would
2006-07 academic
ye~r,
and inserted
Finally,
15
~O
durir_g his lvlay 3rd,
17
helped
~
his
reported during his June
10
,
21st,
two papers
was a slow typist.
course
d~ring
enforcement staff and the
6
the
papers.
their
edited
reported
2007,
interviews
in this
type
and
reported
2007,
reword
interview
that Monk
some of his papers so
se~se.rr
that they w8uld "make better
19
further
20
writing ~ssignments,
21
FaP.',ily and Re=..ationship classes.
22
Point number
23
duri~g
reported
;Y!onk
helped him in h:'s
in his English, Theater and
three: Nonk acknowledged
her November 7, 2007, interview
enforcement stafE
25
that
and the
typed student-athletes'
with the
ir.stitution that she
handwritten
drafts and
S9
1
typed outlines
for student-athletes on her word
2
processor,
3
sometimes
4
actual papers which Monk considered permissible.
and
be
that
mew~ers
institutional staff
7
Schmauch
reported
8
athletes
typing
9
institutional staff member Kylie
was
seeing
a
asked
Lord and Brian
Amy
Monk
with
student-
paper,
and
current
Amato reported
10
that
11
year at the institution
12
student-athlete.
13
by their direct supervisor, Mark Meleney.
15
staff believes
16
benefits when she
17
type
three
by Monk during her intern
to type
a paper
for a
These concerns were addressed
eor the
14
would
Former
four:
number
6
she
strokes
included in the student-athletes'
Point
5
key
her
above-mentioned
reasons, the
that Monk provided impermissible
used
her
word
student-athletes
r
processor to
rough
drafts
I
developed
19
outlines
for
the
student-athletes'
papers, and edited their thoughts.
20
The
enforcement
21
Subparagraph (a) should
be
22
And this
staff's presentation of
23
Subparagraph (a).
concludes the
24
CHAI~~N
25
Mr. Smrt.
THOMAS:
staff
found
Okay.
believes that
as reported.
60
1
~IR.
S~lRT:
2
it is an extra benefit.
3
MR.
4
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
5
MR. PARK:
Thank
PARK:
you.
We agree that
May I ask a question?
Yes, Judge Park.
I am confused, which is not
6
infrequent.
I would
like to
7
at the
8
bullet on
9
editing and typing portions of papers.
very beginning.
1-4 of
clarify something
Looking
the Case
Summary talks about
10
drop down into later bullets and
11
typing papers.
12
Now,
first
Dr.
it talks about
question
actually
is
the
typed
an
allegation
14
entire paper up for any of the student-athletes,
15
or is it that she may have typed portions of the
16
paper?
MS. THOMPSON:
Monk
Then you
13
17
that
my
at your first
It is my understanding
student-athletes 1
the
from
19
interviews that she typed portions of papers for
20
some, and that for
21
papers.
22
lister.ing
to
18
MR.
others she
PARK:
Could
typed the entire
you identify what
23
papers, what complete papers she typed r
24
and when, and what course?
25
MS.
THOMPSON:
Out
of
for whom
the
three
I'
~&llH
student-athletes, tte
o~ly
2
ident':"fy
that
3
been,
believe
4
individual
5
2006-2007 academic year.
I
7
papers,
that we cou:d
typed papers for would have
is
it
the
during the
HR.
6
she
person
that
So,
PARK:
as
far
as
entire
goes to
8
HS.
9
10
unclear
11
whether or not
12
language
13
papers.
14
from
THOMPSON:
the
other
it
was
that
MR.
PARK:
was
having trouble
16
it is jcst trying
17
contends.
two
was
The
to
That has
and
is
papers.
portions
next
just
Their
of their
question
I am
this isn't criticism,
~nderstand
to do
It
student-athletes
entire
it
wit~,
15
Yes.
what the staff
with the concept of
18
editing.
1/Jhat is editing?
19
We have got a center
So, was it improper
20
that is supposed to assist.
21
for Dr.
22
these student-athletes had prepared?
~onk
MS.
23
to
look at
drafts of
THOMPSON:
24
that editing and
25
different
Mr.
proofreading
separate
things
papers that
Park, I believe
are
two totally
within the revision
62
1
process of the
2
permissible
3
athlete's paper?
4
that it
5
I
Do
paper.
for
her
to
I
believe
proofread
But
Certainly.
it was
a student-
do I believe
was improper for her to edit the paper?
do.
MR. PARK:
6
Does that
7
mean?
8
clear,
9
you mean
By
what
include criticism,
this is clear,
or what
actually rewriting it?
10
get the flavor of this,
11
proper and
12
Smrt talked about as
13
moving a line.
do you
this isn't
is editing?
Do
I am trying to
if I can, as to
what is
what is not proper to cover what Mr.
MS.
14
editing,
very
THOMPSON:
difficult,
As
in my opinion, when you
it
or maybe
relates
to
15
editing,
are looking at
16
a paper and determining whether or not the paper
17
meets the actual requirements of the assignment,
18
when you are looking to determine whether or not
19
the content ~s actually
20
the
21
smoothly, whether
22
whether
23
there is an introductory
24
conclusion statement.
25
I
transitions
or
not
think
there,
and
or
there
in
paragraphs
the
not
you
is
whether
flow
are determining
a thesis statement,
statement,
my
or not
there
is a
opinion that that is
63
When you
editing a paper.
you
are
2
think
3
looking at grammatical and typographical errors,
4
not when
5
have, in fact, met
6
paper.
reviewing the paper and
you are determining whether or not you
MS.
7
simply
are proofreading, I
all the
requirements of the
Can
POTUTO:
I just follow up?
8
What do you contend that she did with
9
editing?
us
Did
say,
she say to the student-athlete,
10
let
11
sentence that
12
write the topic sentence?
MS.
13
regard to
there
is
no,
you
know,
topic
start-s this paragraph, or did she
From
THOMPSON:
statements,
they
the
student-
14
athletes'
15
"made sure that the
16
When we asked Dr. Monk what did she actually do,
17
she informed the staff and the
paper
indicated that she
made
better sense."
institution that
',-trite
'rJould
outlines
18
she
19
athletes for the paper.
for
the
student-
She would type handwritten drafts that
20
student-athletes
If
the
21
the
22
students did not have
23
the paper
met, she would -- I don't know if she
24
used
exact
25
statements.
the
provided
her.
all
requirements of
words,
the
reword
some
of
the
But she made sure that the student-
64
1
athletes' papers made sense.
MS. POTUTO:
2
Did you ask
what it
the students
3
in particular
4
said IImade the papers make better sense"?
6
of the
7
deflect this back
8
they
9
student-athletes.
11
I
MS. THOMPSON:
5
10
was they meant when they
I will
interview.
did
the
to
the
bulk
listened to several
say, and
I have to
institution, because
of the interviews with the
So, I would like
for them to
answer those questions.
MR. SMRT:
This allegation has evolved
over the past few
13
talked about the initial interviews with the 30-
14
some athletes.
15
Monk advised.
16
So,
17
months.
President Wetherell
12
Those
the
were
auditors
athletes
that Dr.
went
with the
thought of, "as there anybody else
in
who got help
18
as
19
went in with
20
l':'ne.
did in l-(b).
":1d
that
approach
During those
21
or
that
So, they
i~terview
initial interviews, five
22
athletes said Dr. Monk typed papers for her.
23
coming
24
iolere five athletes that said typed papers.
25
~"e
Qut
of
the
So
auditor's interview, there
When
got inv01 ved , we said let I s make sure none of
1
them have restoration issues, so we went back to
2
the five,
3
interviewed all five, and four of
4
and said no, she really didn't type
or Bob
Minn£x went back to the five,
One athlete,
6
typed papers.
So,
7
Monk's
8
interview, she said no,
9
What she
interview
go
with
November.
I
that
St'_2
into Dr.
And during her
didn't
type papers.
did say was that I would sit down with
10
them and they would give me
11
would type up tr.eir tr.oughts.
12
It would
their thoughts.
be an outline or a theme.
13
was tte one that specifically asked
14
of this
15
yes, I believe -- well, she said I
i6
to thef!l then.
17
pape~s.
, said yes,
we
in
them came off
ever get
I gave
into a
them a
paper?
I
I
her did any
And she said
gave it back
disk or hOt'iever I give
I
said did
any of
18
it back to then.
19
get into a paper?
20
on occasion that probably did."
21
on, we
22
a whole paper or
23
think
24
Services can
25
paper
And she said,
that ever
"Yes, I believe
From that point
didn't care if it was an issue of typing
that
a
a
piece
person
type
regardless
of
we don't
involved in the Academic
anything
of
paper,
a
that
gets
into a
learning disability, a
66
1
learni~g
2
from
3
acknowledged an extra benefit violation.
strategy, or a learning diagnosis.
that
4
point
on
we
thought
she
So,
has
Now, Joyce continued on, and continued
5
on with typing papers.
6
of the four who denied it fClr a third ir:.terviefo"J,
7
and
8
they still
9
was one
said
~vho
So,
we went back to some
-- well, for the most part,
no,
she
didn't
type papers.
said no.
10
After
being
confronted
11
auditor' s
12
So, ';-lhere
13
athlete,
14
paper.
15
what we are basing our position on.
intervie~v,
this
he said yes, maybe she did.
we are sitting here today we have one
who
~1je
16
17
with
have
she
did
type a
her Dvm testimony, and that is
lhe extra
during the
said
benefit
interview there
is
that
she said
were occasions from
18
what I typed,
that
19
if
20
athlete's paper for us,
will,
you
information, her keystrokes,
somehow
got
into
difference
22
make
23
strategies or whatever.
24
it an
25
don't have to get
any
editing issue?
student-
that's it.
That is an extra benefit.
21
a
about
doing
It doesn't
disability
It is a violation.
I don't know.
to the
editing.
To us,
Is
you
If she did
I'
I
C&llH
67
something that got into a paper,
MR.
2
am curious about this
I
PARK:
3
editing problem.
4
for Dr.
5
maybe had a draft of a paper?
6
as a part of her function?
Monk to
What
was it
do when
Could she
7
that's enough.
that was proper
a student came in and
What could she do
make suggestions
8
substance of the paper,
9
expressed?
as
to
the
as to the
way
Where is the line?
I
think the line -- well,
10
MR. SMRT:
11
if an athlete comes
12
the
13
athlete's thoughts.
14
athlete's thoughts
and give
15
her.
vlork
16
that's where the issue came up for us.
17
it \"'as
athlete,
in,
obviously,
But once her
MR. PARK:
She
So,
she
can sit
and
go
could
goes
down with
through
write
it back
into
the
down the
to him or
the paper,
you are saying if she
18
had written these notes on
19
paper,
20
athlete had put that
21
the paper,
you
know,
a
pad
pen,
in those
with
and
j~st
a
then the
exact words into
that wouldn't be a violation.
But
22
with
a
the
fact
that
she somewhere or
23
another ~ad perhaps for clarity sake,
24
else,
25
that becomes the extra benefit?
if nothing
typed it up, and then he used those words,
I'
I
I
~
I
68
2
If
MR. SMRT:
1
it
is
the athlete's
words! yes.
MS.
3
If it is the athlete's
POTUTO:
is that
right?
Is that
4
words and her typing,
5
your distinction, that if she is typing and then
6
it is the athlete's words, and
7
retypes,
8
that right?
9
are, no extra benefit?
there
would
be
then the athlete
no extra benefit; is
I just want to understand where you
10
~lR.
11
MS. POTUTO:
12
MR. PARK:
SMRT:
That is correct.
Do you want to go ahead?
I am almost through.
I am
13
looking at Exhibit 1-7 of the institution.
I am
14
sorry, 1-8, which is a draft which I assume that
15
Dr. Monk prepared.
16
of
l7
about two-thirds of the
that
draft,
When you turn over to Page 6
at
the
bottom it has 45, and
way down
the paper "if
:'8
there is difficulty writing", and then there are
19
about five bullets.
It
20
talks
about
21
proofreading, acting
22
be acceptable activities?
NR. SMRT:
23
as a
use
of
scribe.
computers,
Would those
Generally speaking, no.
24
guess it
depends on
25
by those
words.
I
what specifically is meant
But I
think I
will let Mark
II
69
Meleney address that because this is obviously a
2
draft document that Dr. Monk developed.
3
let Mark address that.
And then if somebody could
MR. PARK:
4
, will
you
what is
in answering that
6
this
7
other than it was
8
mean, was
9
the higher-ups, either accepted or not accepted?
piece
10
But at
11
the time.
of
amplify,
know,
5
a draft
this something
least it
some years
Okay.
I
would like to
address that, if I could.
14
on her interview with
15
was
16
students with learning disabilities.
17
develop
I
that was turned in to
13
to
back?
shows what her thinking was at
MR. MELENEY:
12
what does it stand forI
paper,
When Dr. Monk came in
Florida
services
State,
our goal
to meet the needs of
She presented a model
for
me
in our
~ook
18
program to
19
of her thoughts because
20
after
21
hire.
22
development
23
submit
24
ac knO'N ledgemen t .
25
Brenda
her
hire,
And
to
at.
the
this
within
this
of
This draft was an extension
a
was
was
the first year of her
the
beginning
programming
institution
and
I
just shortly
for
walked
that
of
we
approval
through
her
would
and
this
I'
[&llH
70
1
draft, we
2
the
3
SDRe.
4
appropriate or inappropriate at the direction of
5
the SORe.
talked about
draft.
It
6
Nuch
different issues within
of this was dictated by the
was
determined
So, my
direction
to
to
be
Brenda
either
at that
7
time was
8
with the director of
9
the institutionls position is on these services,
10
and we will continue to clearly define a program
11
and establish a program in place.
12
as we
continue to
This draft
the
develop this,
SORe,
talk
determine what
never surfaced any further
13
than
14
institution and
15
of her personnel file.
16
in the file as our discussions to this process.
17
that.
So,
I
presented
to the
the
this
draft
to the
NCAA, just directly out
This
efforts
was a
of
draft I had
this draft were
instituti.on
or
18
never
19
determined
20
accommodations or non-acceptable
21
She continued
22
different versions of the efforts were continued
23
to be defined.
24
25
acknowledged
to
MR.
by
the
be
either
acceptable
at
that time.
to discuss this with the SORe and
PARK:
that is Dr. Monk,
Was she ever instructed,
that she
couldn't perforQ any
::&llH
71
of those activities that are described?
2
MR.
~lELENEY:
sir.
Yes,
3
numerous discussions related
4
of
5
appropriate accommodation.
6
clarification
7
received some communication ·on that.
a
scribe,
8
9
and
from
And shortly
would have
to
whether
the definition
a
We
compliance
We did have
scribe
asked
is
an
for some
as well, and we
after this,
I believe it
been probably in '02, a decision was
10
made that
11
institutional policy unless approved by the SDRC
12
Office.
l3
we could
MR. SMRT:
not provide
There
was
a scribe under
also
a policy
14
that Mark implemented at some point that a tutor
15
or mentor could
16
athlete.
17
general restriction also.
So,
not
be
at
a
screen
with an
this would have fallen under that
18
CHAI&~N
19
MS. MYERS:
THO,ffiS:
Just
20
~r.
21
presentation r if Dr. Monk
22
in the SORe,
23
been within the rules?
24
MR. MELENEY:
25
to
Meleney
determine
Andrea Myers.
I'
one quick question.
or else Ms. Thompson! based on your
had been
an employee
then would these same services have
that
on
I believe you would have
an individual basis for
I..
I
72
1
each student, because the
2
each
3
services or maybe not.
student
4
provides
So, each
would have
6
would say yes,
7
but, no, this one is not.
9
to be
reviewed and
these
types
of
student's case
the SORe Office
this accommodation is appropriate
MR. SMRT:
with the SORe to
this
them
individual's
5
8
disability defined by
You
receive
it.
At
this time,
10
during
11
were several athletes with what were believed to
12
be disabilities.
13
time
have to be registered
However,
period, unfortunately, there
there
were
few
diagnoses
14
through SORe, if you registered with SORe.
15
everyone
16
diagnosis.
17
is
registered
NS. MYERS:
Now,
with SDRe who has this
One quick follow-up.
So,
18
now a student-athlete registered with SDRe could
19
receive this same service and it would not
20
violation?
21
MR.
ABELE:
There
is
be a
a three-step
22
process to registering with SORe.
23
the student
24
and which test they
25
by which the disability was determined.
The first is
voluntarily comes in with documents
have taken
and the process
\I
C&lIH 73
1
Those documents are submitted to SDRC.
2
There is then an interview with
3
the student to determine what accommodations are
4
appropriate, and then
5
the
6
agreed to participate with SORC in this process.
faculty
7
8
completed
9
accommodation
finally
member
And it is
SORe staff, and
signs
a
only,
those
that
student and
letter that they
bnce
three
certified
the
a
student has
steps
and
the
the
student
is
10
eligible for them, but they must be taken in the
11
SDRC Center.
12
MS.
MYERS:
was
yes.
So,
the
answer
to my
13
question
14
athlete is currently enrolled in the SDRC and an
If
the
current student-
employee in the SORe provided these services, it
16
would have
17
NCAA.
been legal
within the
rules of the
MR.
18
ABELE:
Only
if
during
the
19
evaluation and interview process they determined
20
that those services were appropriate.
21
very rare in SDRC.
MS. POTUTO:
22
23
a moment?
24
that right?
25
Typing is
Can I clarify it just for
It would have to be in the centeri is
MR. ABELE:
That is correct.
I, .
\I
[&llH
74
1
CHAI~~N
2
Judge Lechner.
3
MS. KARPINSKI:
THOMAS:
Okay.
Can I
just clarify the
4
SORC policy on scribes?
A scribe, as defined by
5
SORC at
Florida
University
6
that is
certified by SORe to serve as a scribe,
7
and that would
8
would be allowable in a testing situation.
State
only
be
an
is somebody
accommodation that
1-
9
SORC
does
not
permit
scribes to do
10
papers or work on assignments with
11
Typing services is different from a scribe.
12
scribe
13
situation, not
14
and that sort of thing.
is
an
accommodation
CHAI~'ffiN
16
MR. LECHNER:
17
something a
in
to work on papers,
15
THOMAS:
I
the student.
a
The
testing
seeing papers
Judge Lechner.
would like
to get to
little bit basic, and maybe ask the
18
University,
19
me know.
20
State and my professor says the paper has
21
typed, that
22
correct?
and
If
t~en
I am
if the staff
taking a
MR. ABELE:
24
MR. LECHNER:
yes or no.
course at Florida
to be
is my obligation to type the paper,
23
25
disagrees let
(Nods head.)
You will have to respond
[&l:'H 75
1
~1R.
2
t-1R. LECHNER:
ABELE:
That is correct.
So,
if I can't type, I
3
have to pay somebody to type it or
4
else who
5
for me,
will be a friend of mine to type it up
correct?
6
MR. ABELE:
7
MR. LECHNER:
canlt type,
That would be correct.
So,
and I
9
somebody in either the academic or
10
Department types
11
about
12
handwritten it,
13
is that correct?
editing
and I
. if I
8
it,
just
15
MR. LECHNER:
the
the Academic
for me, and forget
types
it
as
I have
I have gotten an extra benefit;
MR. ABELE:
of
am an athlete
am in this course and
that paper
14
one
get somebody
Yes.
Now,
if that same person
16
in
Florida State departments, not
17
only types it but comes back and says,
"Lechner,
18
T
think
you have got to add this in, this isn't
19
correct.
20
it."
Reword this.
Let
22
of it,
23
unethical; is that correct?
25
you reword
As he or she is typing it changes some
21
24
me help
that is adding to
MR. ABELE:
of the honor code.
my paper,
and that is
That would be a violation
76
MR. LECHNER:
1
2
It
correct?
3
NR. ABELE:
4
MR. LECHNER:
Correct.
So, if I had that done,
5
I
6
and an ethics violation?
could have two
violations,
7
NR. ABELE:
8
MR. LECHNER:
9
an
extra benefit
Yes.
Thank you.
Does anybody
disagree with it on the staff?
10
11
would be unethical,
MR. DIDION:
No,
sir,
agree with
we
that.
12
MS.
JENNINGS:
I
have
a
little
13
question about
14
reading your
material you have a Writing Center
15
that does do
exactly
16
described,
17
University can go to the Writing Center and that
that,
and
because
that
what
any
I understood from
Judge
Lechner just
student
in
the
18
Writi~g
Center
19
say you
don't have
20
don't
21
rewriting it
22
the things
23
correct?
24
25
have
a
will
work with the student and
a topic
thesis.
this way,
that he
MR. ABELE:
sentence here; you
Have you thought about
et cetera,
and many of
just described; is that not
That is correct.
What the
Writing Center's staff are permitted to do is to
77
tell the student the paper doesn't have a theme,
there is no transition sentences, it needs a lot 3
of work.
You need to go back and work orr it.
4
They are not allowed to type the paper
5
or to
6
give them.
put naterial
in that the student doesn't
7
CHAI~ffiN
8
Mr. Smrt, would
9
THOMAS:
Any other questions?
the
to respond?
10
MR.
SMRT:
No,
I
11
reinforce the current policy
12
be at
13
the
14
registered with SDRe now.
a screen
athletes
15
1-JR.
player,
17
institution like
have done?
just is that
do want to you can't
with a student-athlete, and all
who
PARK:
have
been
diagnosed
are
What should the football
what What should have happened?
should he
18
19
20
HR. SHRT:
He should have gone to SORC
and tried to get a temporary accommodation.
~lS
.
POTUTO :
SORC
is
not
simply
21
learning disabilities, it is any disability that
22
they handle?
23
MR.
ABELE:
24
disability,
physical
25
learning disabilities.
They
disabilities,
handle
any
as well as
--11"
'--&-,-~r!
78
1
2
CHA::-:R.\]AN THOMAS:
Any
other questior.s
or comments?
3
NS. KARPINSKI:
4
if
somebody
The question about the
came
to
SORe
the SORe
or a handicap of SOQe sort,
6
would not type his paper.
7
to accommodate
8
him to type, whetter
9
computer or
10
They would
with a
find ways
and other ways for
sorneth~ng
it is
read orally
like that.
into a
They would not
simply take the draft and type it.
11
C~AIfuv~N
12
in terms
13
for 1- (a)?
THOMAS:
Mr. Srnrt, is this it
of the institution's opening statement
14
MR. SYlRT:
15
CHAlfu'1AN THONAS:
16
Dr. Monk.
17
t'IR.
I think you have heard it.
HARGROVE:
Okay.
If
18
briefly to one issue, Mr. Chairman.
19
CHAIR"IAN T HOt-Ln.S :
20
Dr.
21
MS. MONK:
22
CHAIRHAN
23
MR. HARGROVE:
24
Mr. Smrt, the intervievl
25
that I
~onk,
Go ahead.
are you in agreement?
Yes,
that's
THO~lAS:
f~~e.
Okay ..
vlith all due respect to
of
, vias one
would have dearly loved to have been at.
79
was nowhere near to be kir.d
stateme~t
2
as defiGitive as what Nr. Smrt has relayed.
3
Mr.
4
Smrt
was,
said she. didn't
in
fact,
type anything,
there.
and he was
5
confronted with essentially a question that was,
6
well,
7
whenever.
that disagrees with what you
8
9
he
IIOh,'1
said back in
said, "well, whatever I said
then is what I said."
The two statements in the
10
two
not inconsistent with one
11
another.
12
whom Dr.
13
learning disability.
interviews
14
were
is one
Nonk worked
And
interjecting that.
16
everything else.
,1
,
-,
know that,
who did,
that,
'dith
1:>
of the
I
students with
in fact, have a
apologize
for
You are free to ask Ms. Nonk
But I wanted
that this
the Committee to
is one of the issues from
18
our perspective that 'de had to deal '..JiLh becaJ..;.se
19
'lie were not there.
20
have pinned that down a little better.
21
iYlS.
POTUTO:
22
you.
23
The
24
sounded to
25
You are saying in
You know,
second
I would have dearly loved to
I am not
sure I
follm-;ed
we do Qot have the statements.
statement,
me exactly
as
you
described
it,
like what Nr. Smrt said.
the first
statement that
ao gav~
2
3
YIR.
HARGROVE:
MS.
fie
POTUTO:
In
the first interview,
!,Jhat di.d he say?
6
~lR.
HARGROVE:
7
he said
8
type services,
9
second interview he
10
That is correct.
was confrorrted in the second interview
4
5
he did not say she typed for me?
papers
essentially that
for
In the first
she provided editing-
tutorial services
me.
said
intervie~
she
for him.
didn't
The
type any
Those two statements are not
inconsistent.
c2 13
But he was confronted
indicating to
him that
So, what
they were inconsistent.
said was,
15
said in
16
was correct as was the second.
17
the first
other
with a question
"Well, whatever I
interview was
~1ords
,
it
correct."
wasn't
It
the
18
SiCUB::-=-on
~9
said between
20
be consisteat but was confronted
21
that
22
inconsistent.
23
they were inconsiste:1t,
24
words that they were inconsistent.
25
told
wheLe
!:2canted vJf:at [:2
i~terviews.
him,
wait
Those
a
minute,
were
a question
those
are
not r..is words that
those
CHArm'IAN THON}\S:
w~th
W2Le
Dr. Monk.
Mr. Smrt's
81
1
MS.
you
Ttank
MONK:
for
tte
2
opportunity to speak.
3
say that
4
"hen I was brought
5
University
6
interview process, part of the interview process
7
included
people
8
employed
at
9
individuals "ho were employed with SDRC.
10
when I
in
It
First of
was hired
on
2001,
who
our
was
I
want to
at Florida State or
board
and
all,
at
I
Florida State
went
through the
were individuals who were
Testing
very
on
campus,
much a statement to me,
11
and I took the
12
what
13
could do
14
student-athletes who didn't always meet the time
15
lines that SDRC had.
was
at
to
the
with
the
in
operation.
belief that
do was to complement what SDRC
university
with
SDRC had certain hours
16
17
I
position
Center
They
a
group of
that they were
were limited in the fact
II 18
that they had no
19
with learning
20
that were available
21
were volunteers to SORe, not paid specialists in
22
the areas of students with learning disabilities
23
and other disabilities.
24
Not
25
tutors
available
disabilities.
all
at
SDRe
All of the tutors
were
student-athletes
learning disabilities.
Many
to students
of them
tutors that
just
had
had -- we
32
worked
with
stud2~t-ath:etes
2
impairmer:.ts.
3
who
4
teraporary
5
spoken of about
had
6
We
ir:1pairments
physical
So,
~-Jith
worked
visual
I
that had hearing
student-athletes
as
well
as
the
disabilities
that
we
ha~le
on board
2ame
w~th
tr.e belief
7
that my job responsibility was to complement the
8
services that
9
and to be able to provide
'ile!:"e already or. campus witr. SORC,
10
24
11
stude~t-athletes
hours
12
a
day,
or
those services really
at the availability when
needed those services.
I tad the same
qualifications, if not
13
higher qualifications, than the ~ndividuals that
14
served in SDRe.
Those were
15
were advertised
for, were qualifications that I
LQ
, r
was
l7
provide
if'.tervie~Jed
the
~vith
support
and
qualifications that
asked
if
I
could
services to students with
18
disabilities.
19
And
~
I did so with rigor, and
20
a
21
anyone in this room,
22
those
23
question.
level
six
of
I
never
~
did so with
professionalism that I don't think
and
a
if you
had
any
saw me
~'/ork
during
half years, would be able to
I never typed a
24
25
did so.
paper for
a student.
intent of typing a paper for
::&llH
83
1
students.
2
writing
3
question as to they supposedly had
4
or maybe they might have had a disability.
I
did
work
with
disabilities.
5
I
came
into
students
There
the
was
position
qualifications to know that they had
7
disability.
8
agree to
9
locked
this,
my
in
my
office,
file
it
with the
a learning
cabinet
that was
had every student's
paperwork in there that
11
specific learning disability.
diagnosed
them
with a
A student with a writing disability is
13
going to
14
their thoughts
15
the NCAA and how
16
how I could work with those students.
17
a
In my file cabinet, Nr. Neleney can
10
12
never
a disability
6
in
who had
have
I
did
a
very
difficult
on paper.
the NCAA
struggle.
I
time getting
did struggle with
and the institution,
I did seek counsel
18
from
19
Compliance
20
this student?
21
they write
22
going to be able to accommodate them?
23
I do?"
24 25
~lr.
Meleney.
I did
seek counsel
"How
Department.
They
have a
can I work with
writing disability,
at the second grade level.
So, the
only thing
was what I knew from my
from the
I had
How am I
What can
to rely on
educational background.
I'
:::&llH
84
1
What
I
knew
2
afforded to them by their high
3
that carne in their IEPs, in their folders.
4
from the accommodations that were
What
was
school programs,
prescribed
to
them
as an
5
accommodation by clinical psychologists that had
6
performed
7
them, and had given
8
order to be successful.
9
evaluations
psycho-educational
I also
them
what
they
they needed, what their parents said.
11
to their
12
Ii fe \vhere
13
Athletic
14
professional
15
learning
16
disabilities.
17
So,
I was
Academic
to
I talked
and so I was at a place in my
the onl y
one who
was in the
Support
Program
who
working
disabilities
I
needed in
relied on them, what they said
10
parents,
on
relied
with
was a
students
and
with
I
didn't
with
other
have
a
18
document.
19
University produced for me
20
you can and cannot do.
21
published by ]\Jr. ]\Jeleney to say that I
22
could not do this as part of that.
~<Jas
There
23
And
24
about many of
25
talked about.
I
Many
saying this
is what
There was not a document
worked
the
not a document that the
with
changes
SDRC.
that
of those
]\Jr.
could or
I brought
Smrt has
changes became a
[&llH 85
1
part of what my goal was,
2
I brought SDRe in our building.
3
We set
was to work with SDRC.
up office hours for them to be
4
able to meet with
5
to
6
services.
7
graduate student that could kind of be a liaison
8
between SDRe and the Athletic Department.
9
At all times throughout the six
assign
student-athletes, to
reluctant
I
worked
be able
student-athletes
with
getting
up
for
an academic
and a
10
half
11
believed that it was my job and my position that
12
I was
13
was to provide the supplemental studies, provide
14
supplemental
15
SDRC,
16
but realizing
17
meet the needs of the student-athletes.
years
that
hired for
never
I
worked
there,
I
always
and had the qualifications for
services
intended to
that SDRe
that
would
take the
complement
place of it,
could not at that time
18
Therefore,
the
University
19
requested
20
that could provide those services.
21
will say
22
very
23
disabilities.
24
25
and
I never
closely
If you
friends
sought
that
had
and found a professional
But again,
I
typed a paper, but I did work
with
students
with
writing
know someone in your family or
have
a
writing
disability,
I' [I
[I
Ii
'-=&llH 86
1
diagnosed with
2
very much understand why L may have used some of
3
the tactics that I did.
that disability,
you will never
I' I 4
['
CHAI~~N
THOMAS:
Thank you, Dr. Monk.
5
We are going
6
Committee, and then we will break and come back.
to
take
two
7
Judge Lechner.
8
MR.
9
LECHNER:
work with
a student
10
who
decided
11
within the
12
purview·?
questions
Doctor,
who was
from the
did you ever
rejected by SORC,
,,
13
SORC
didn't
need
qualifications to
MS. MONK:
I
or
come within their
worked in
my six and a
14
half
15
student-athletes, so to say that --
years,
I
probably
16
MR. LECHNER:
17
MS. MONK:
Oh?
didn't fit
went
through
Excuse me, Doctor.
1,200
~IR.
18
Listen to the question.
LECHNER:
19
I didn't ask how many people you worked with.
20
just
21
provide services to a
22
by
23
within our profile, does
24
services?
want
to
know
l
during your period did you
studer.t who
~.,as
rejected ,.1
25
SORe,
or
one
MS. MONK:
that
SORe said does not fit
not
qualify
for SORe
No.
1/
[&llH
87
I I
1
MR. LECHNER:
2
MS. MONK:
3
MR. LECHNER:
4
CHAlfu~N
5
MS. POTUTO:
T
am sorry?
No.
i
6
are not a licensed
7
the
8
right?
learning
THOMAS:
10
As
Professor Potuto.
I understand it, you
professional who
disability
MS. MONK:
9
That is all I have.
MS. POTUTO:
could make
diagnosis;
is
that
That is incorrect.
So, you are licensed, and
hire you if I had a child and you could
11
I could
12
do the diagnostic determining
13
learning disability
14
our
15
licensed
16
credentials permit her to make this diagnosis?
17
center
at
that I
Nebraska
professional
MS. MONK:
that there
was a
could then bring to
and
say
whose
this
is
a
professional
I did that for 20
years in
18
the State
19
Florida, but I
20
Mississippi
21
provided those services for 20 years.
as
licensed
a
MS. POTUTO:
school
in
the
State of
psychologist
and
Not the services, but the
I'
diagnosis.
24
25
was
I am not licensed in
II
22
23
of Mississippi.
MS. MONK:
of
Mississippi,
I
For 20 years, in the State
was
a
licensed
school
[i
I
'I ,
I
I.
C&llH
88
I
a licensed school
psychologist.
2
psychologist in the State of Mississippi and can
3
provide those diagnostic services.
I
4
did
am
still
1
not
that
seek
license
in
5
Florida, because the services were already there
6
in SORC and at the Testing Center, and I did not
7
seek that license to
8
still
9
Nississippi.
a
MS. POTUTO:
10
11
hire
12
right?
13
14
licensed
you
as
cover Florida.
But
I
psychologist
school
am
in
And the University didn't
a licensed diagnostician; is that
MS. MONK:
That
is
correct,
and I
never served in that role.
15
MS. POTUTO:
Okay.
So,
can you say
16
that every student-athlete with
17
had a disability that was processed through SORC
whom you worked
18
MR. i:-1ELENEY:
19
MS. POTUTO:
Yes,
ma'am.
Were those diagnoses ones
20
that identified a learning disability particular
21
to writing?
22
MR. MELENEY:
23
all those documents t
so
24
documents for
25
between Dr. Monk and the
I did not have access to
I did
every student.
SORe
not review those
That decision was
Office.
So,
I
I'
I
'
)
II
I
89
1
2
~lS.
They
were
MS. POTUTO:
I don't care
about that.
Oid they go through SORC and get certification?
5
MS. MONK:
That was not a policy that
6
they had to get certification.
7
MS. POTUTO:
8
MS. MONK:
9
certified as
having a learning disability when they came.
3
4
MONK:
Are you answering no?
If you are
asking if every
student went through SORe, the answer is no.
10
MS. POTUTO:
With
regard
12
worked,
13
SORC,
14
performed
15
were using?
did
that
to
The answer is no.
the
you
students
have
had been
within
MS. MONK:
17
MS. POTUTO:
whom
you
document, other than
a diagnosis
the
16
a
with
Okay.
that had been
prior two years that you
Yes,
I did.
Every single one?
18
MS. MONK:
19
MS. POTUTO:
Yes.
You
said you
20
that if Mr. Meleney found those,
21
been in the file?
22
MS. MONK:
23
MS.
24
true?
25
She
had files,
they would have
Yes.
is that
I
Did you find documents on every student?
i
said
she
POTUTO:
worked
Mr.
with
Meleney,
1,200,
with 1,200
:::&llH
90
who
had
learning
documented
1
students
2
disabilities where the diagnosis would have been
3
in the prior two years.
MR. MELENEY:
4
When
she was referring
5
to 1,200
6
1,200 disabled
7
other students, outside
8
well.
9
students that she worked with as far as
:0
students,
We
did
not
referring to
Dr. Monk worked with
students.
MS.
of
other
students, as
have documentation in-house on
POTUTO:
12
show there
13
for each of those?
14
was a
I know.
Did
the documentation
diagnosed learning disability
MR. MELENEY:
As
far as I understand
it.
MS.
16
17
was
I do not know of any individual students.
11
15
she
two years?
POTUTO:
Done
with
in
the prior
I'
I 18
MR.
i:
MS. POTUTO:
Yes
f
rna I 2m.
Were those diagnoses ones
20
that identified a learning disability particular
21
to writing?
22
MR. MELENEY:
23
all those documents!
so
24
documents for
25
between Dr. Monk and the
I did not have access to
I did
every student.
SDRe
not review those
That decision was
Office.
So,
I
I ) I
i~&llH
91
1
can't
2
disability for each of those students.
tell
3
you
that
I
MS. POTUTO:
knew
Dr.
of
the type of
Monk,
did
4
students with
5
learning disability that went to writing?
6
whom you
MS. MONK:
all the
worked have a diagnosed
Not
all
students
had a
7
diagnosis of a learning disability with writing.
8
There
9
students.
was
only
I
a
certain
would
just
segment
like
of
the
to say to Mr.
10
Meleney, each semester, and I have a copy of the
11
document, I
12
the document with the student's name
13
the
14
students.
15
provided Mr. Meleney with a copy of
disability
information
and all of
regarding
the
My file cabinet was available to him.
So, there
16
Meleney and
17
an opportunity to
was
an
opportunity.
Mr.
I were the only two people that had
look
at
their
files.
For
18
cor,fidentiality,
19
everyone to see.
they
were
not open files for
In answering your question
20
again, not
21
all students had a writing disability.
22
were to
23
about
24
writing disability that was diagnosed.
25
provide
today,
the
that
MS. POTUTO:
services
student
So
that
would
that
But if I
we talked
have
had a
every student
r
92
1
that is
2
were named for whom you provided the assistance,
3
all of
4
to writing, all three?
named in
here, at least the three that
them had diagnosed disabilities relating
5
MS. MONK:
6
memory is not that good, but I
7
documents in front of
me, and
8
as a
of yes
9
going to have to pass on that one without having
I do not
clear statement
have those
-- my
do not have those
cannot make that
or no.
10
their documents in front of me.
11
MS. POTUTO:
Okay.
Let
So, I am
me see if I
12
understand
you.
13
authorized
to
14
diagnosed learning disabilities
15
whatever the accommodations that would have been
16
provided as a part of the diagnosis or as a part
17
of
the
You
work
accommodation
contend
with
plan
that
students
with
derived
you were
who
had
regard to
from
the
is
diagnosis.
You \vere authorized to do that without
19
20
regard to
whether the students went through the
21
SORe process?
MS. MONK:
22
That is correct.
secondary facility
The SORe
23
was a
on campus to use as a
24
resource for students,
25
to be a part of SORe for me to work with them.
and so they
did not have
93
MS.
1
POTUTO:
Maybe I didn't ask the
2
question right.
3
I
4
any
5
accommodation, that. student would have had to go
6
through the SORe process.
7
I
10
student
find out.
on
campus
could
be
provided an
Let me just make sure
understood that from the University.
MR. through
the
ABELE:
SORe
if
All
they
students
are
to
must
go
receive
accommodations.
MS. POTUTO:
11
12
saying
13
policy?
14
trying to
thought I heard the University say that before
8
9
am just
I
that
you
MS. MONK:
Okay.
disagree
I
that
hear, then, you
that
was the
The policy with SORe, as I
15
understood it, and I am not trying to contradict
16
Dr. Abele in any way, if they were to receive an
17
accommodation,
a
classroom
accommodation, the
co~ld o~ly
18
classroom
19
if they were a part of the SORe.
20
accommodation
That did not preclude
them from being
I was
not providing a
21
able to
22
classroom accommodation.
23
be received
work with
me.
MS. POTOTO:
I
am
not
talking about
24
whether they
could work with a tutor outside of
25
SDRC, but whether without going through the SDRC
I.'
=&llH
94
1
anyone could
2
you
3
authorized
4
students
who
5
process.
I
say
6
give an accommodation.
that
you
to
did
not
description,
8
description
9
looking for,
you
were
acconunodations
for
go
through
the
SORC
want to find out where you are.
MS. MONK:
7
that
believe
provide
And I hear
you
it
Yes,
will
see
clearly
which
if you
was
read the job
that
states
in
student-athletes
11
Accommodations from
12
accommodations in their classroom.
with
job
what they were
someone
10
the
to
learning
work with
disabilities.
i
"
SORC
MS. POTUTO:
13
allowed
But
~lith
them
respect, and I
14
still don't know what your position
15
the University
16
not,
17
accommodation,
if
the
to get
is, I heard
say that whether in classroom or
student
that
was
student
going
would
to
get
an
have to be
95
1
to
take
2
10:30.
3
is
4
time.
a
break
at
this
time.
It is about
That
We will reconvene in ten minutes.
10:40.
So,
we
will take a break at this
Thank you.
(RECESS. )
5
are
ready to
7
start here after everyone gets seated.
I have a
8
couple of questions for the institution.
9
actually
6
CHAI&~N
THOMAS:
responsible
for
10
disabilities, whatever they
11
campus?
ABELE:
vie
We
Who is
determining
might
have
be,
a
the
on your
very clear
12
~JR.
13
written policy on that.
14
Resource Center is the only agency that can make
15
that determination.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
16
17
The
Monk given
Student Disability
At any time
that responsibility
was Dr.
or authority to
18
determi~e
19
athletes?
MR.
20
21
22
23
tr.at sr.e could
do that
Not
ABELE:
with student-
that I am aware of
sir.
Dr.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
Monk, were you
under those impressions?
24
MS.
25
determination
MONK:
that
I
a
student
never
had
made
a
a learning
~&llH
96
1
disability.
2
took the documentation that the student provided
3
to
4
were cleared through the
5
provided the documentation during that period of
6
time,
7
provided that documentation to us.
the
Athletic
or
8
9
That was not my responsibility.
when
Department,
they
did
I
not
learning disability.
either when they
clearinghouse and they
carne
to
diagnose
I
I
our
campus and
students with a
took the documentation
10
that was done by a professional psychologist, in
11
whichever state the student carne from.
12
came from the State of Washington,
13
was provided by the State of Washington.
14
If
they
15
provided by
16
i t was provided by
17
ever
give
Texas.
a
came
from
If they
the diagnosis
Texas,
it
was
If they came from Florida,
Florida.
diagnosis
for
At no
a
time did I
student with a
18
learning disability.
19
when they came to us.
MR. SMRT:
20
21
Dr. Monk worked with
22
It varies
23
her
24
percent
25
diagnosis.
by year,
latter
of
years.
those
The diagnosis was in place
As a clarification mainly,
maybe 50 student-athletes.
and it was increased during
We
can't
tell
student-athletes
you what had
a
,I
I
18
learning disability.
19
when they came to us.
The diagnosis was in place
!
I·
,! t~R.
20
SMRT:
21
Dr. Monk worked with
22
It varies
23
her
As a clarificatiqn mainly,
maybe 50 student-athletes.
!
J
by year,
latter
years.
II
and it was increased during
We
can't
tell
i1
you what
1/
24
percent
25
diagnosis.
of
those
student-athletes
had
I
II I,
a
II'
Ii I ,I' (I "
II '
I
!
(( II
I.
II ,I
'I
l
~&llH
97
We believe there are
1
some who didn't,
2
but we
can't tell you -- we can't give you what
3
percent.
4
work
5
percent or
6
vast majority were not registered.
~vi
We know that of
th,
that
were
so were
CHAIRt'1AN
7
the athletes
diagnosed, less than 10
registered \;i th
SORC.
From
THOMAS:
8
institutional perspective, could
9
of
when
procedurally,
she did
you
10
athletes would come in,
11
determining
12
upon their
13
junior
14
depend upon them to go to the SORC
15
evaluated?
16
would use to determine the disabilities?
17
their
level
academic
college,
or
an
just kind
prospective
was there
The
student-
a process in
of disabilities based
record
from
whatever,
high school,
or did you just
Center to be
What was the process the institution
MR. ABELE:
The
process
begins with
" ') 18
the
st~dent
self-identifying
to
the
Student
I
~i
,I
19
Disability Center.
All
20
handbook
21
disability and if they
22
the
23
required to bring in
students
are
given a
,I(
il
that
Student
outlines
if they have a student
choose to
register with
Center,
they would be
Disability
the
date
of
"', I' iT
the current
L "
if there
24
diagnostic evaluation,
25
diagnostic evaluation, whether
was an earlier
or
not
that is
:,.•
/'
,'
'( :/
I.
1
ii'
I ,
II
t '"I I~
I
L
J
=&llH
98 r--
I 1
followed,
the
Diagnostic Statistical Manual of
2
the American Psychiatric Association, along with
3
the criteria and the professional credentials of
4
the individual \"ho performed the diagnosis.
The reason
5
is
that they
are required to
6
register
7
disability
8
relating
9
would have to go through that process.
the
are
to
statutes
different
collegiate
from
staff,
to
is
K-12
those
rules
So, they
disability.
That information
10
relating
assessed
by the
11
professional
12
interview
occurs,
13
necessary.
That is clearly outlined in both the
14
Student Handbook and the University Procedures.
and
and
that
any
CHAIRNAN THOMAS:
15
16
couple of
things.
17
Nonk, and it does
The job
have
some
I
is
when
the
accommodations
have
noticed a
description of Dr.
wordage
in there
:"8
that indicates
19
di.sabilities.
20
So,
about an
assessment of learning
I am trying to --
Dr.
Monk,
you
again,
correct me.
21
incorrect,
22
noticed
23
credentials,
24
handicaps and so on and so forth,
25
and all
that
all
in
of
terms
your
of
if
I am
I also
professional
retardation
and
apprenticeship
those credentials were on the secondary
r
99
1
level,
2
level.
3
4
5
6
7
they
Am
were
not
on
correct
I
the
in
post-secondary
that assessment of
your credentials?
MS. MONK:
Licensed
in
the
state is
Do
you
have any
going to be only K through 12.
CHAIRMAN
THOMAS:
8
credentials,
9
would allow you to go post-secondary in terms of
10
11
professional
credentials,
disabilities assessments?
MS. MONK:
I
have a
12
in Education
13
same as President Wetherell has.
14
that
Leadership.
CHAIfu~N
Doctorate Degree
I believe that is the
THOMAS:
I
am
talking
15
specifically about the credentials, professional
16
credentials as you had
17
clearly indicates
with K
that you
through 12, that
are certified to do
18
MS. YIONK:
19
20
r
dah, dah, dah.
I
did not
know that those
credentials exist.
21
22
question is from the
23
referral process
24
students
25
evaluated for
probably
AASS
in terms
need
My
Okay.
THOMAS:
CHAlfu~AN
Office,
is
last
there a
of determining these
to
be
learning disability?
assessed
or
Can someone
~&l1H
100 ~
1
explain what that process is and how many actual
2
students you did have?
3
MR.
Some
SMRT:
athletes came with a
4
diagnosis and the AASS sent out some athletes to
5
get
6
process works, there were some on campus, was an
7
on-campus facility
8
private group that also did that.
tested.
9
If
So,
yes,
you
want
that did
some
to
know how that
that.
came
and
There was a
some
were
10
diagnosed when
11
back to your question about the job description,
12
because
13
Dr. Monk's
the
14
they arrived.
job
I did want to go
description -- Exhibit 1-8 is
draft during
the interview process.
1-7 is the job description.
1 c c~
about making protocol for
16
campus.
17
that
So, I
she
has
1-7 talks
working with
SORe on
am not sure if anywhere it says
the
authority
to
provide
18
NS.
19
20
r
accorrunodations.
JENNINGS:
Look
at
No.
13,
Question No. 13 on the job description.
MR. SNRT:
21
22
conduct
23
recommendations and
24
and monitor
25
what
she
I
have
that.
assessments,
learning
make
appropriate support counsel
That is exactly
student-athletes.
was
It says
supposed
to
do,
and
develop
~&l1H
101 II
1
"
,
learning strategies.
2
In her interview, she talked about you
3
would work differently with people with learning
4
disabilities.
5
range of
6
provided.
Obviously, we are talking about a
disability
She
7
8
there
are
9
individuals
or
talked
about
different
with
accommodation
different
that makes sense.
11
what
12
strategies(
13
different accommodations.
is
I see
MS. JENNINGS:
14
the
you
16
"Conduct,
17
assessments is capitalized.
over
Learning
disabilities,
and
13 is exactly
individuals
With
15
skipped
for
to do, develop learning
with
work
interview
strategies
that on
supposed
to
the
learning
10
she
in
that is
with
all due respect,
first
Assessments,"
I
three
words,
and learning
guess
I
would
:8
like to generalize. the question a little bit and
19
say I don't understand why you hired a person of
20
her qualifications
21
to do.
I have
22
expect
and what
heard
her
to
a
do,
you did expect her
lot
about
23
didn't
24
clear idea of what she was supposed to
25
somebody help to clarify that for me?
what you
but I don't have a
do.
Can
-=::&llH
102
MR.
1
I
Si'lRT:
guess Mark would be the
2
appropriate person since he
3
supervised her.
4
anSvler that.
6
a
7
posi tion is
8
athletics academic
9
period of time.
specialist
some~vhat
new
our
was for
12
between
13
the student-athlete population.
14
were
15
background
16
disabilities and
17
board and
an
we
were
somebody to build a bridge
University
find
the
academics and
perhaps
what
looking for
to
program,
under
11
your
out and seek
support programs during that
Nationally,
10
for
person who
I would like to
In our efforts to go
5
learning
Yes,
MELENEY:
MR.
was the
expert,
with
community
ask
that
So, our efforts
find
students
to support
someone
with
person
with
learr:ing
to
corne on
establish programming for our student
l8
r
population.
So, our goal vIas
19
to
again
develop a
20
stand-alone program
21
individuals but would be
22
This is where our commitment to Dr. Monk to work
23
closely
with
24
through
the
25
with disabilities and to provide the appropriate
the
that would not be driven by
SORe
University
driven
to
by
a process.
build
that bridge
community
of students
l
103
1
services as defined by SORC.
2
MS. JENNINGS:
And hOI; did you clarify
3
to her, a person with
4
diagnosing and
5
\vhat accorrunodations
6
limits of this were and what was the job of SORe
7
versus what was her responsibility?
8
MR.
9
conversations
a
lot
in assessing
were
MELENEY:
of
and in determining
necessary,
I
throughout
experience in
this
where the
believe
in
process,
one
it was
10
the
11
expertise to
12
help guide our student-athlete population to the
13
right accommodations.
14
discussions
were
related
to
using
your
help understand the process and to
So,
I
valued
her
expertise and her
15
experience in that nature, but also
16
understood that
17
disabilities came directly from the SORC Office.
was clearly
our direction for students with
believe
that
and
Brenda
18
I
19
conversations throughout.
20
That is why she
she came
I
reached
had
out
those
to that
21
office when
22
to build that bridge between the two offices.
24
description
25
forth,
and
surely
given
you
the
Given
JENNINGS:
MS.
23
on board, and the efforts
her
expected
job
background, and so
her
to
provide
,,& 11 H 104
1
accommodations,
2
SORC?
not
just
1-1R. 1-1ELENEY:
3
to
laissez with the
Only accommodations that
4
were defined clearly by SORC, because Brenda and
5
I had --
6
appropriate
7
period of time.
we
so
many
conversations about
accommodations
This is obviously an
8
9
had
lot of
avenues to
it.
throughout
this
area that
has a
What we spoke to often
Can
10
was is this the appropriate accommodation?
11
we provide
any of these accommodations,
and who
12
do we take
our
in this
13
area?
14
our orders from the SORC.
15
It was
marching
orders
clearly understood
1-1S. JENNINGS:
16
they didn't
17
their disability.
from
that we took
Or. 'Ionk, you said that
need certification from the SORe of
I am a
general counsel
at a
18
~nivers~tYI
19
in the United
20
single certification
21
single student who wants
22
certified.
and: am not aware of any university
That
23
States
that
does
not
office, only
doesn't
24
assessment tests, it means
25
so c
have one
one is every
accommodations must be
mean
conducting
the
evaluating them, and
am really interested in why you think they
l-=&llH
105
1
didn't need certification.
MS. MONK:
2
3
that they --
I
MS. JENNINGS:
4
5
I said
I never said that.
wrote it
down as a
direct quote.
MS. MONK:
6
7
talking about
8
have
9
providing
10
provider.
to
look
I am
accommodations,
at
what
I
I
was
I
accommodations.
I was providing
11
When
sorry.
I was
think that you
doing
was
services
a
was not
service
to students
12
with learning disabilities, because I understood
13
what
14
accommodations
15
accommodations,
16
classroom
17
SDRe.
they
needed.
in
If
the
they
classroom,
every student
accommodations
were
that
seeking
classroom
was seeking
were sent through the
They were the
18
only
determine
could
agency
if
there
19
that
20
accommodations
21
classroom.
22
had to do with different from service.
23
that
they
Accommodations
I
think I go
I
could
on canpus
use
were
in their
are something that
back to
the Reading and
saw myself as almost an in-
24
Writing Center.
25
house specialist in how
to
sit
down
with the
L.
::&llH
:06
1
student «ith a learning disability and help them
2
learn how to learn.
I did exactly «hat
3
and
4
that
was
my job description
to provide strategies for
5
learning
6
providing
7
accommodations for those students.
those
students.
accommodations t
If
8
9
for
a
accommodation in
SDRC,
student
was
those
requesting
an
they were sent
10
through
11
provided through
12
professor and asked for accommodation.
them.
not
was not requesting
I
the classroom,
and
was
I
accommodations
were
I have never called one
13
I never met with a professor and asked
14
for an accommodation, and those were -- this was
15
the responsibility of SDRC.
16
providing
17
services that were provided
services
any
I
never saw
different
by the
than
it in
the
Reading and
18
Writing Center,
19
Those
the Math Center.
services
were
I
could
20
provide because I did
21
'.,hat students needed, and I taught them learning
22
strategies so
23
academically in the classroom.
would
MS. JENNINGS:
24
25
they
have an
that
times
that
SDRe
only
be
You
understanding of
able
to perform
have said several
provided
classroom
L.
::&l1H
:;'07
That's
1
accommodations.
2
me,
3
university
4
classroom accommodations.
because
whose
I
am
SDRC
unfamiliar
with any
Office limits itself to
So, can you tell
5
6
again
really astonishing to
me why
you believed
that?
First of all, SORC did not
MS. MONK:
7
8
have tutors that were able to tutor the students
9
with learning disabilities.
10
started, and that may
11
time
12
volunteer students.
I
that
So,
13
14
with
the
15
like I
students
16
tutoring
17
technology.
was.
have changed,
started
they
At the time, t-.rhen I
were
with
So,
services;
They did
I
all
the
not
equipped
tutors
were
to work
learning disabilities
provided
they
but at the
a
lot
of the
were limited in their
have Kurzweil,
and their
18
students did go to SDRC.
19
They
to
SDRC
Kurzweil reader.
to
utilize
They took
some of
some
of
20
did
21
technology.
22
SORC,
23
appropriate.
24
they could provide one-an-one to students.
25
go
utilized
r
if
that
was
an
They
the
their exams at
accommodation
that was
So, SDRC was very limited in what
MS. POTUTO:
If I can
just interject.
L
~&llH
108
1
The statutes
2
defined meaning for
3
very distinct
4
two or three meanings floating around here.
The
5
I
accowmodation.
have a
feeling that we have got at least
SDRe,
in
revealing
evaluations
6
done by licensed psychologists or psychiatrists,
7
would
8
particular
9
area.
10
provide
accommodations
learning
They
would
related
decide
what accommodations
Let us say one of those accommodations
might be that
13
that
14
particular
15
disability can listen to the tapes.
17
the
disability in a particular
12
16
to
under the law were appropriate and necessary.
11
H
with regard to disabilities have a
a
classroom
student
has
who
has
Now t
lectures
that
as I understand it.
a
be
troGble
particular
taped so
with
the
learning
would be the accommodation,
Who provides the
tapes and
18
who assists
in getting
19
is a different question.
20
with me
21
with that distinction, Dr. Honk?
-- well,
that accommodation done
Now,
would you agree
first of all, would you agree
22
HS. MONK:
23
HS. POTUTO:
Yes.
Okay.
So,
what you are
if I understand you, is that the
24
talking about,
25
accommodations that were required
under the law
I I'
r-=&llE
109
1
for
a
particular
2
learning
3
elsewhere.
student given the particular
disability
be
would
determined
Now, we have a disagreement whether it
4
5
has to be done through SDRe
6
take
7
psychiatrist
8
Putting that aside, that diagnosis would be made
9
elsewhere,
came
that
one
or
the
or whether
in
which
had
psychologist
accommodations
that
you can
some
other
done
would
it.
be
10
required would be determined elsewhere, and then
11
what you say
12
whatever
13
new ones.
the
you
were
doing
was facilitating
accommodation was,
14
Do I have it?
15
MS. MONK:
16
MS. POTUTO:
17
MS. JENNINGS:
not describing
Yes, you do.
All right.
The
problem with that
18
is that
the diagnostician
does not dictate the
r 19
accommodation that the university
20
may recommend,
21
institution determines the accommodation that is
22
required.
but it
MS. POTUTO:
23
24
was to
define out
25
she does.
Wherever
provides.
does not determine.
All
what she
I was
It
The
trying to do
is suggesting that
the accommodation is being
l
[&112 ::"10
1
determined,
2
area, but
3
you are using accommodations rather loosely over
4
there because
5
under the law.
I don't Nant
you don't
MS. MONK:
7
CHAlfu~N
8
MR. LECHNER:
10
different area.
THOMAS:
Dr.
Monk,
in
a little
typed a paper; is that correct?
12
'IR. LECHNER:
That is correct.
Did
you
ever
type an
outline for a paper?
14
MS. MONK:
15
MR.
17
Judge Lechner.
You said before that you never
MS. MONK:
16
mean the accommodation
That is correct.
11
13
into that wide
Nherever it is that it is being done,
6
9
to get
Yes.
LECHNER:
Where did you get the
information to put in that outline?
~IS.
MONK:
From the student.
:8 ~9
MR. LECHNER:
Did you ever
change any
of it?
20
MS. MONK:
To
21
no.
22
be
23
disability, or even if
24
their language
25
would guide them to the
change their thoughts/
To change their grammar, yes.
times
where
they
would
There would
have
they were
a
writing
dyslexia, and
would be very mixed up,
correct
I'
way
and so I
to
say a
) I
,
1~&llH
111
1
sentence.
2 I
They might
have the
verb in front of
I
3
the noun, and
4
somewhere, or it may be jumbled up and they made
5
up words.
6
them
7
they would be able
8
would be legible for someone to read.
preposition
hung
Those were things that I
through
9
the
so
out there
would guide
that through their disability
to
construct
a
paper that
How
would you know the
10
subject matter they were in?
Would they explain
11
it to you?
MR. LECHNER:
12
MS. MONK:
Every student that I worked
13
with with a diagnosed learning disability, those
14
disabilities were -- their paperwork was kept in
15
my
16
available
17
demand by academic counselors if they needed it,
office.
That
on
demand
was
by
information
Mr.
that
iYleleney,
was
also on
18
r
coaches.
19
elR.
20
wrong.
21
writing, did
22
the paper?
23
I
LECHNER:
meant
from
Maybe my question was
the
paper
they
were
they explain the subject matter of
MS. MONK:
Yes.
I
mean,
they would
24
come to me with -- they knew what they needed to
25
do.
They just didn't know how to do it.
L
I
112
1
I I
MR. LECHNER:
I
am not
talking about
2
the
3
paper with
4
citations.
5
explained to you what the subject
6
paper was, whether it was a book
7
it was
8
whether it
9
explain what they were talking about to you?
assignment,
10
a
for
example,
certain
I
am
number
talking
a comparison l
write a 25-page
of
footnotes or
about whether they
matter of the
revie~
whether it
was an essay,
was a philosophical essay.
MS. MONK:
11
further
with
12
writing
disability
13
disability.
14
critical essay on a
15
English short story.
Yes.
that.
I
So, let's
Did they
want to go one step
Usually,
they
whether
also
if
had
they had a
a
reading
say they had to write a
short story
in English, an
16
The first thing that the student and I
17
would have done, if they were unable to read the
J.8
short story
because it was written,
say, on the
j' r
19
eighth or
n~nth-grade
20
read
the
21
severity of their learning
22
read the story.
23
A lot
on
level, and maybe they only
second-grade level because of the
disability,
we would
of times IVe IVould just do -- it
24
was almost like paired reading.
They would read
25
a paragraph, become very tired, and I would read
I
I
113
1
the paragraph.
2
short story from beginning to end.
3
So, we would read the story,
Then they
would look
at the question
4
that
5
assignment they were trying to answer.
6
talk
7
understanding
8
they would proceed with doing it.
they
were
through
9
trying
it,
of
to
and
MR. LECHNER:
So,
paired
11
book, or
12
subject
13
explain that book to them?
and
you
whatever that
matter
of
they
or
when
you
the
We would
had
they needed to do,
10
reading
answer,
once
what
the
an
then
had this
read the essay or the
was supposed
to be the
the critical essay, did you
14
MS. MONK:
15
MR. LECHNER:
Yes.
Did
you
explain some
16
criticisms or give them some ideas on what their
17
paper should be?
It was a process.
~8
MS. MONK:
19
MR. LECHNER:
20
me.
That is a
yes or no?
21
MS. MONK:
22
MR. LECHNER:
23
to them,
24
give you an outline?
25
Excuse
"hat their
MS. MONK:
Yes. After
you explain that
paper should
be, did they
Yes.
I'
L
L:&l1E
114
MR. LECHNER:
2
whether that outline was correct or incorrect?
3
MS. MONK:
4
MR. LECHNER:
5
Did you explain to them
Yes.
Were
they in agreement
with you or in disagreement at times?
6
MS. MONK:
7
MR. LECHNER:
Yes.
After you explained the
8
book to them and after you explained the outline
9
in that,
10
did you have any further discussions?
~IS.
MONK:
They would then write, and
11
then they ;lQuld come
12
their initial writing.
13
t-lR.
14
that vlriting?
~IS.
16
17
back and
LECHNER:
MONK:
physical
layout
And did you criticize
Yes.
MR. LECHNER:
the
we would discuss
I
of
am not
talking about
the writing where the
18
verbs and adjectives were, hanging prepositions,
19
split
20
substance of it?
definitives.
21
MS. MONK:
22
about
23
they on track.
24
25
how
they
Did
Yes.
you
I
criticize
mean,
the
we talked
developed the writing and were
MR. LECHNER:
! Did
you
criticize the
substance of what the student was saying?
L
[&llH 115
1
2
"IS. HONK:
I am not sure I understand
what you are saying.
3
MR. LECHNER:
4
the substance
5
to you as to what the
6
the criticism?
of what
you
MS. MONK:
8
MR. LECHNER:
disagree ,"i th
the student was offering
student was
7
9
Did
proposing as
No.
Did you ever change any
thought of a student?
10
MS. MONK:
11
MR. LECHNER:
That may be
it
believe
12
I
13
explained to me
14
book and
15
level where you had
16
student, walk
17
you are telling
find
hard
No.
to
that
a student
you
had
a fact, but
when
you
just
an eighth-grade
with a second-grade reading
to
read
the
book
to the
the student through the book, and
me
that
whatever
the student
18
said you took verbatim.
19
~
find
20
that is the case,
21
view,
22
else you want to
23
the opportunity.
24
25
['
it hard
to
fine.
But from
I find it difficult.
say to
MS. MONK:
be there to see
I
bel~eve
that.
If
my point of
If there is anything
that, I
will give you
think you would have to
the process.
The
process was
L
C_&llH
116
1
not a
2
to be.
3
4
3D-minute process as you are outlining it
It was --
MR. LECHNER:
didn't
suggest any
time.
5
MS. MONK:
6
MR. LECHNER:
7
I
It is very time-consuming.
Excuse me one second.
I
didn't suggest any time period.
8
Go ahead.
9
MS.
MONK:
was
It
a
very
tirne-
10
consuming process.
11
a student on a
writing
12
many different
factors that
13
was a process that sometimes went on for a week,
14
sometimes it went on for two weeks, sometimes it
15
went on for four weeks.
,
r
assignment,
It was a process
LO
l7
Any time that I worked with
writing
and
re-writing,
there were
went into
of
writing
it.
It
and re-
and investigating and
18
looking, and coming up
with how
19
their
in
20
professor was asking for.
thoughts
MR. LECHNER:
21
22
down
thoughts.
the
they could put
way
Well, he gave
that
the
you these
You typed them out; is that correct?
23
MS. MONK:
24
MR. LECHNER:
25
MS. MONK:
That is correct.
They wrote them out?
The
majority of the time.
L
117
1
There were a couple of occasions where it
2
became -- I did use the
3
them
4
depended
5
disability.
with
6
.
-;
a
on
general
the
But on
word processor
outline.
severity
8
was not
9
not a normal teaching procedure.
a normal
operating procedure.
as
11
students there were probably
12
semester
13
based
14
disabili ty.
15
that
on
students,
would
the
But
was
a
It was
I worked with
two or
three each
more
of my time
of
their
process.
16
something that just happened.
17
not in
what the
or it
and out of those 65
require
severity
it
learning
That did not occur
10
65
the
that
a day-to-day basis, that was a
very rare occurrence.
as
Again,
of
7
many
to help
Ny
student needed
learning
It was not
thoughts were
to say,
it was
18
their thQughts.
I
did help
them clarify their
r 19
thoughts
20
understood,
21
understood and not just a mumble jumble of words
22
that
23
~..,ere
at
times
that
so
that
their
they
thoughts
could
be
could
be
thrown out on a paper.
1m. LECHNER:
Did you ever
suggest to
24
the
25
student may have missed the point, may not be on
student
that
the criticisn offered by the
L
I I
C&llH 118
1
point, or may be incorrect?
2
MS.
3
question,
4
you?
5
asking?"
MONK:
Usually in an open-ended
I might say,
IIHow does
this sound to
Does this sound like what the question was
,
I
f-
6
MR. LECHNER:
7
the student
8
misses the point?
9
10
11
~IS.
Did you ever
suggest to
that the criticism was incorrect or
~IONK:
Their
finished product is
what they want was their thoughts.
MR.
LECHNER:
One more opportunity.
12
Did you ever suggest
13
criticism was incorrect or missing the point?
14
MS. MONK:
15
CHAr&~N
to the
student that their
No.
THOMAS:
Let
me
ask
the
you
provide NCAA
16
institution a question.
17
rules education for personnel in the AASS area?
Did
18
~1R.
Obviously,
SMRT:
Dr. Monk I'Jas
1.9
there for several years, and so we will do it in
20
pieces
21
could direct what
22
period.
23
because
has
it
went
MR. BATTLE:
evolved.
on
when Dr. Monk first came on
25
~Jeleney
that
the initial
Our educational efforts,
24
stated,
during
Brian maybe
board, were
as Mr.
this was a new position.
l
119
~
1
At the time she came on
2
of us in the office.
3
Bob Minnix
board there
oversaw the
were three
office as the
4
Associate A.D.; who was in charge of educational
5
efforts
6
Parker, and I was
7
assisted them in any of those efforts.
at
8
9
that
After
time,
was
compliance
about
nine
directed by Penny
coordinator.
We
months, I believe,
when Dr. Monk was on staff, Mr. Meleney asked us
10
to put
11
Registrar, Academics and Compliance at that time
12
would
13
things.
on the
meet
14
agenda, which our Financial Aid,
once
During
a
that
semester to get at certain
educational
15
were trying
16
specialists could provide.
17
them they
process, we
to learn what services the learning
At that time ;,e told
could only provide services that were
l8
provided by SORe.
In
19
regards
to
other
educational
20
opportunities for
21
Office, it was highly
22
with Mr.
23
sessions at
24
which I believe most of the staff did attend.
25
Meleney,
the
the Athletic Academic Support
reco~~ended
that
in discussions
they attend their NAAAA
national
and
regional level,
In addition to that, ·some of the staff
I'
[&l1H
120 f"--
I
1
members attended the NCAA regional seminars.
2
I
3
with the Financial Aid, Registrar, Academics and
4
Compliance
5
which education was a part of
6
areas.
stated
7
earlier,
in
that
2005
8
of each year we
9
Director of
the semester meetings
became
In addition
a monthly meeting,
that in different
to that, at the beginning
would meet
as a
staff and the
Athletics would have what we call a
10
certification and compliance meeting.
11
talk
12
Athletic Department as well
l3
point in
14
did not know of any NCAA rules violations.
about
15
the
state
time signing
of
tvere
17
Athletics
employed
at
Department
the
We would
union with the
as stating
the NCAA
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
16
As
Dr.
Florida
give
at that
form that they
Monk, while you
State,
you
did
any
the
rules
18
education regarding NCAA?
19
NS.
The two policies that we
t10NK:
20
talked about was that the typing of a
21
a student, and any other services that you might
22
give a
23
paper, and
24
an extra benefit.
25
student
as
far
as
those services
So, those
w~re
pens,
paper for
pencils and
that would have been
the two rules, and when
I'
121
1
you talk about what typing a paper is, and maybe
2
this is a good point to bring that up.
3
this was my poor interpretation of it although I
4
know why -- I guess I stand on this.
5
When
I
think
about
Maybe
the typing of a
6
paper!
7
occurs when
8
someone in the Athletic Department or someone on
9
campus, if you will just type this paper for me,
I
considered that to be
a student
a violation that
can request at will from
10
or that paper is
typed for
11
them in
draft form, that they can then
12
take it to class and get a grade for it.
13
a final
That,
to
me,
was
them and
my understanding of
14
what
15
student through the process
16
and using
17
we were in the process of getting more
typing
a
paper
technology,
for.
handed to
In facilitating a
of writing
a paper
technology drives us all,
and more
18
technology, of
19
Speak Naturally, trying to get those programs on
20
so that students in the Athletic Department that
21
had a learning disability in reading and writing
22
could
23
speak into a
24
~vould
25
use
using Kurzweil
that
technology
computer
and
reader, of using
so that they could
a
finished product
come out.
I
would
have
never
been put into a
I\
122
k
1
place where
2
using a
3
accommodations was typing a
4
them with
5
they did not have to purchase it themselves.
6
I
might
word processor.
pens and
CHAlfu~N
we
have
paper and providing
pencils and
THOMAS:
if
8
regarding AASS Department
9
there specific
ask
facilitate them
But as far as the two
7
can
to
with
paper, so that
Okay.
some
~lr.
Meleney I
specificity
and
the
here
SDRC.
education, NCAA rules education,
10
that were covered and reviewed and
11
in
12
disabilities, what you could and couldn't do?
meetings
13
that
related
talked about
to
learning
Was that ever mentioned, and anything,
14
any
15
disseminated
16
areas?
17
Was
documentation
~IR.
to
to
the
MELENEY:
indicate
personnel
Yes,
sir,
that
in
this \'ias
those
there was.
two
We
18
conducted weekly staff meetings.
19
meetings we listed at times in our agenda issues
2D
of question, any services of questions.
We had
21
opportunities
tested
22
through compliance, where we did the 3D-question
23
test related
24
bylaws that were
25
and academic support.
where
to Bylaw
we
were
At those staff
actually
14 mainly,
related
to
but to other
academic services
L
123
So,
we
conducted
Brenda was involved with
those
NAAAA and
processes.
I am deeply
involved in NAAAA as well.
CHAlfu~AN
Monk,
THO~mS:
In
essence,
Dr.
if Mr. Meleney's articulation is accurate,
then you
knew what you could and couldn't do in
terms of extra benefits with learning disability student-athletes?
MS. MONK:
paper for
them
pencils, paper,
I
or
knew I could not type a
provide
so they
them
with
a pen,
would have to purchase
it.
CHAIR~N
THOMAS:
So,
in
essence,
That is correct.
I knew I
everything else you did not know?
MS. MONK:
could not
classroom,
provide
and
them
that
accommodations
that
had
in the
to be provided
18
through SDRC.
19
CHAlfu~AN
20
MS. POTUTO:
21
22
THOMAS:
Professor Potuto.
Do
you
get
training on
the definition of an extra benefit?
MS.
MONK:
An
extra
23
something that a student
24
Athletic Department
25
outside the Athletic Department,
could
benefit
receive
was
in the
that they could not receive
that a regular
I'
L
C&llH 124
1
student could
2
Department.
3
4
not receive
MS. POTOTO:
outside the Athletic
Let
me get
back to the
compliance.
5
Did you
do specific
training on what
6
an extra benefit means?
7
you can
8
this, you may not do this, you can do this.
9
in
do a
another
list you
level,
the
I
mean, at
may not
basic
one level
do, you can do
But
principle as to
10
where the dividing line is, so that you can make
11
some
12
often are more useful.
13
14
of
the
more
discreet decisions,
Did Academic Services get
I think
the general
instruction on what an extra benefit is?
15
MR.
BATTLE:
Yes,
ma'am, they did.
16
The basic understanding, as Dr. Monk has stated,
17
is our
premise was if you cannot give it to the
18
general student!
19
student-athlete.
20
then you cannot give
To take it a step further,
21
where Dr. Monk was
22
did a
23
it
24
situations
25
She was in those
was
present,
tutorial education
specifically
what
every
in meetings
semester we
with the tutors where
described
constituted
meetings
it to the
and
in
different
an extra benefit.
understood that
125
1
education.
2
3
MS.
POTUTO:
Dr.
Monk,
if I can,
would like to follow up.
4
Mr. Meleney,
wanted
to
did
say?
you
have something
wanted to follow up a
5
you
6
little on what Judge Lechner was pursuing.
7
educational
8
administration,
9
education; is that correct?
with
MS. MONK:
11
MS. POTUTO:
12
student
13
level,
14
example earlier,
15
what you said,
16
They
who
has
which
course, and
I
background
10
17
I
a
in
educational
specialty
in
special
That is correct.
Okay.
got
is
is
Your
what
a
So, you have got a
second-grade
I
or 'driting
reading
think you used as an
level,
I
guess is
a second-grade writing level.
are
they are
in
an
English
supposed to
Literature
read Tale of
18
T\.JO
19
Cities?
Cities.
Are
you familiar with Tale of Two
20
rviS.
21
MS. POTUTO:
MONK:
I
have read it,
So
Okay.
yes.
the student
22
comes to
you after you have spent -- I am being
23
assisted
over
24
accommodation.
25
for a period of time on the book.
here.
She
just
I~
gave
me
an
You have worked with the student
II
1~&l1H
126
1
Then the student goes off, and I think
2
you said
3
that right?
4
mouth.
they would write their own outline;
I don I t t-Jant
5
MS. MONK:
6
MS.
to put
words in your
Yes, ma'am.
POTUTO:
Okay.
So, the student
7
comes back and tells you that the two
8
the book are Rome and Alexandria in Egypt.
9
do you do next?
10
is
MS. MONK:
You
11
at the
12
was a very long process.
scenario in
13
MS. POTUTO:
14
MS. MONK:
know, I
trying to
cities in
What
guess we look
fill it out.
It
No, no.
I
understand.
15
process.
I mean,
16
summaries,
we re-read the
book.
17
incorrect
information,
it
I
was a long
we read the book, we read the
If
would
they had
be
my
18
responsibility to guide them in the ways to find
19
the correct information.
20
MS.
21
do.
22
in the
23
the student.
24 25
POTUTO:
Tell me what you would
The student tells you
book are
that the
two cities
Florence and Alexandria.
I am
[
You just gave me --
MS. MONK:
We would read.
incorrect inform~tion,
we would
If that was
(,
go back and we
1
<
J.
['
,
,
I
I
I
I
C&llH 127
1
would re-read the information
2
correct information.
3
MS. POTUTO:
So,
until he
had the
what would you tell
4
me?
5
there is something here that is not right?
We are going to go back and re-read because
6
MS.
7
them
8
reading.
like
I would say something to
MONK:
you
may
have
misinterpreted
your
Let's read it again.
CHAIRMAN
9
THOMAS:
Any
further
I, 10
questions?
11
MS. POTUTO:
So,
I
assume
from what
12
you said,
13
of the
14
lengthy
15
forth, and you would never at any point say when
16
you
17
error?
and particularly from,
responses
process.
designated
that
But
these
this
you
two
I think,
could
be
in one
a very
would go back and
cities there was an
18
~lS.
That
MONK:
not
teaching.
19
Teaching is
20
own
21
information.
22
used
23
teaching
24
looking
25
materials, looking at it a different way.
mistakes
the
allowing the
is
and
to
I was
experience,
other
find
and
a teacher.
standard
at
student to find their
it
resources,
their
I taught and I
teaching l
and
gain
professional
would
be
re-reading
maybe
1
the
!
,\,-
12B
It was not my purpose to give them any
1
2
information.
That is
3
only occurs
when the
4
find out information on their own.
5
get an
Teaching
teaching.
student can learn and can
MS. POTUTO:
If
I am
law class
and I
7
are eight Justices on
B
say that is wrong/ I am no longer teaching?
MS.
10
process.
11
tape
12
student.
13
understand.
answer from
in a
6
9
I-~
not
a student that there
the Supreme
MONK:
You
know,
Court,
and I
it is a long
cannot outline -- I wish I had it on
I
where
you
I
could
think
that
see me working with the
is
the
14
You know,
15
saying to them that is right
16
I was
17
knew it was wrong and I was just
always giving
only
way to
I was not in the process of
or that
is wrong.
them an opportunity.
If
T
giving them an
18
opportur..ity to
19
to find the answer.
investigate it
on their ot-/n and
r I
d 20
MS. POTUTO:
And
what
would
be the
21
responsibility
22
cities are Alexandria and Florence! and you said
23
you may
24
read again,
25
vlould
we
of
the
student?
have misinterpreted,
would we
read
the
If
the two
let's go back and
read
the
page
that
entire
)
book or
designated the
I
I
II
I
I
L
I'
129
1 I
correct answer to the two cities?
\
MS.
2
a
After
~IONK:
few
3
used
4
going to insist that he read
5
read
6
what I asked him to do.
7
He
those
choice
the student probably
words
passages
would
to me because I was
the book
again or
again, he would have done
have
read,
we
would have
8
discussed, and giving him an opportunity to
9
have --
to be
at the same level as the student
10
who didn't need any
help.
11
the whole
12
Kurzweil read to him, or reading it two or three
13
times to allow them the opportunity to be on the
14
same level of classroom discussion, so that they
15
would be
16
those
17
learning disabilities.
purpose of
able to
students
You know,
reading to
that was
him or having
perform in the classroom with
who
did
not
have
diagnosed
I 18
VI'-' • i..::J
POTUTO:
What
19
again, and it is a
long
20
again,
it again,
21
and say that the
22
Rome.
23
24
25
and
I read
two
if I did read it
and
book,
I
read it
and I come to you
cities
are
Florence and
Is there a point at which you would stop?
MS.
MONK:
And
jGst
give them the
)
I
answer.
MS.
POTUTO:
No,
just
stop,
be
!
I'
C&l::"H
130
I
I \
1
permitted to
2
wrong because you have gone through
3
number
4
right answer.
of
5
I\
times
and
MS. MONK: would
paper that
they
they
7
constructed it.
That
8
always
choice
9
wanted that additional help
had
turn
the
was flat out
a process a
never did find the
There would be a point that
6
10
in
the
work
as
was their
they
choice.
had
They
of whether or not they
or
whether
or not
they wanted to turn in exactly what they did.
11
I
submit a
There were
12
choice not
13
turn in
14
in a failing grade.
15
I mean,
16
would have to work
17
the correct answers.
to come
work that
there was
many of
them who took the
through me,
and they would
was sub-par and would result
So,
there was
never any
with me
never any--
mandate that they
until they
got all
18
Nr.
~Ieleney,
19
it.
20
thought it was you,
I don't
want to misstate
I thought I heard somebody say that, and I
21
MR. MELENEY:
In
my conversations in
22
reference to a scribe, which maybe, I don't know
23
if you are describing the typist or a
24
the
25
scribe, because Brenda had
same
thing.
We
scribe as
got a definition that a
shared with
/'
us that
I
J
I
I
[&118 131
1
the software program that they used.
2
wrong.
3
But they actually had
4
place,
5
SORe to go
6
essence,
Dr. Abele
and
7
they
and
the
speak to that.
software
program in
trained the students who used
use
that
software,
which,
in
typed their paper for them.
That
8
wouldn't have
9
because they
10
can probably
I could be
was
any
the
need
service
to
that
provide
SORC
a typist,
had the technology to provide that
service.
11
MS. POTUTO:
My question is, I thought
12
I
13
answer back from SORC that outside
14
service
15
student, even with
16
the
17
provided.
understood
to
typing
Mr.
a
was
Meleney
diagnosed
a
not
to
you got an
the center a
learning
writing
a
say
disability
disability, that
service
that could be
18
Mr.
~eleneYI
19
it.
20
thought it was you.
I
don't
want to misstate
I thought I heard somebody say that, and I
21
MR. MELENEY:
In
my conversations in
22
reference to a scribe, which maybe, I don't know
23
if you are describing the typist or a
24
the
25
scribe, because Brenda had
same
thing.
scribe as
(
.
We
got a definition that a
shared with
us that
1
r
::&llH
132 i
<
1
under
2
eligible for a scribe,
3
scribe.
federal
4
I
law
asked
certain
students
should be
her
to
would be
eligible for a
do some research on
5
that.
6
guidelines that share that.
7
that --
8
information to the Compliance Office, but we did
9
get an answer from the Compliance Office.
10
I
asked
her
to
provide
some federal
We provided
don't know if we provided that direct
I
I
don't
know if
it was through their
11
discussions with SDRC as well, that we could not
12
provide a scribe directly.
13
MS.
POTUTO:
Mr.
Abele, was it you
14
that had talked about typists in
15
thought somebody
16
would like to get it corrected.
17
~lR.
there did.
ABELE:
I
If
particular?
I
I misheard, I
am reasonably familiar
i8
with the
services, and
_ am
unaware of typing
r~
I
19
services
20
Center.
21
disability such that
22
but
23
eight accommodations.
that
the
Student
Someone,
is
not
Disability
presume
I
they
would
Resource
may have been a
provide them,
one of their standard six or
They will send students, they are note
24
25
at
takers,
they
are
sign
language interpreters.
I [ 1-
[&llH
133
1
But I do not know of any typists.
2
1-IS. POTUTO:
3
MR. MELENEY:
4
reference you
5
mentioned that
6
type a paper.
8
what the
9
there.
Yes.
I
think the other
were speaking to is when Mr. Smrt
I said
MS. POTUTO:
7
I
Mr. Meleney.
to the
No,
staff you cannot
I was first getting
center's position
But let's go
was.
1,1
10
what did
11
typing?
12
When was it that you told the staff, and
you
tell
the
MR.
MELENEY:
staff
It
with
has
regard to
been so many
13
times.
I mean,
14
all of
us within the profession that you cannot
15
do.
From the moment Dr.
16
our
program,
17
level you cannot type a paper for a student.
typing of
she
was
a paper
Monk came
is known by
on board in
aware at the collegiate
I "
MS. POTUTO:
~8
So, you had staff who had
19
concerns about
20
was and had come to you on several occasions, so
21
much so
22
computer terminal on her lap.
23
whether she
knew where the line
that you told her she couldn't have the
Was
anything
24
oversee what
25
that the end of it?
else
done
to
try
to
she was doing or not doing, or was
I ,
\J
,\ ,
j'
1
[&llH 134
1
on
2
drafting -- helping a student draft
3
developing a study guide, because we will get in
4
this later.
the
difference
5
between
an outline,
When we talked about when I referenced
5
Dr. Monk,
7
Brenda
8
these issues
9
and she assured me that she
10
typing a paper and
when my staff came to me on concerns,
and
I
had
direct
conversations about
every time that it was approached,
understood the rule
and understood what she could and couldn't do.
11
MS. POTUTO:
Let's
try this, though.
12
If you tell her you may not type a paper and she
13
has typed
14
you, could say not,
15
16
17
part of
Did
the
the paper,
she could answer
I did not type the paper.
conversation
go
any beyond
typing a paper?
MR. MELENEY:
Yes,
ma'am.
They did.
:8
She gave me direct
19
she was
20
those issues.
21
visual learner, those were the examples that she
22
shared with me.
evidence of
the th~ngs that
working on, and I felt comfortable with
23
An outline, a
MS. POTUTO:
24
there
25
should not
was
a
directive
be at
I
diagram to
help a
thought somebody said
that a tutor counselor
a computer
terminal with the
!'
135
1
student.
2
We got to a point where
MR. MELENEY:
3
staff, throughout that three-year
4
time --
5
a t her computer,
6
when I went in to Dr. Monk and said, "Brenda, we
7
don't know what you are
8
concerns
9
that you understand what you can provide for the
if a
student,
11
student's
12
conversations
13
period of time.
14
15
16
17
staff member saw Dr. Monk sitting
that
10
and
lap.
period, every
they
you
t.... ere
working
on.
So,
We have
can't go further than that,
the
keyboard
II
I
that
uncomfortable.
mean,
she
and
needs to ,be in the
those
were
the
I had during that
MS.
POTUTO:
When
MR.
t1ELENEY:
Numerous conversations
would
that have
been?
from probably early '04 on.
18
MS. POTUTO:
So, you had staff who tad
19
concerns about
20
was and had come to you on several occasions, so
21
much so
22
computer terminal on her lap.
23
whether she
knew where the line
that you told her she couldn't have the
Was
anything
24
oversee what
25
that the end of it?
else
done
to
try
to
she was doing or not doing, or was
I
l \
I'
C&llH
136
MR. MELENEY:
1
No, I don't think -it was
2
ever
3
forefront of my thoughts
4
relationship
5
relationship.
the
6
end
of
it.
I think it was at the
throughout our working
together.
We communicated
we
to
each
7
believed in
8
was as an educator.
9
her education and her experience.
10
each other.
But
I
MS. POTUTO:
had a strong
other.
We
I believed in who she
recognized and respected
But, nonetheless, you had
11
staff
12
sufficiently
13
believe in her you gave her a specific directive
14
where the
15
to be slightly
16
17
saying
we
so
are
that
really
no
uncomfortable,
matter
keyboard should
be.
how much you
It sounds to me
inco~sistent.
MR. MELENEY: In that period of time,
I
will
speak
to that.
there '.-Jere not more than
\vhere the
18
four or five occasions
19
me directly,
20
evidence of any information
and at
They say
21
no time
I walked
did they have any
by Brenda's office
22
and she
23
their evidence of any wrongdoing.
MS. POTUTO:
24
25
is on a keyboard.
and say
I have
staff came to
That was the gist of
Did you go
to Compliance
staff people who are concerned,
I
I
[&llH 137
1
what might we do, what controls might we
2
place?
3
doing to either
4
appropriately or find out that she is not?
What
5
kind
of
put in
oversight should we be
determine
MR. MELENEY:
that
she
is acting
I did not.
What I did,
process.
There were
6
I believed in her and the
7
four occasions
8
this was happening on a weekly basis or anything
9
like that.
10
months.
It
was happening
so it wasn't like
once every eight
But I did not.
CHIlIRMAN THOMl\S:
11
12
in four years,
Judge
Lechner,
and
then Judge Park.
MR. PARK:
13
Mr.
Meleney,
14
at
15
background question to begin with.
Exhibit
1-6.
I
just
16
Have you got that?
17
MR. MELENEY:
sort
Yes, sir.
I am looking
of
have
a
Up ilO the right-hand corner
18
NR. PARK:
19
it says "Director's Office."
20
Was that your office?
21
MR. MELENEY:
22
~JR.
And
PARK:
23
reports that
Dr. Monk
24
student in the office
25
her, did
she give
Yes, sir, it is.
when
you
got these
was on a computer with a
and you
you an
went to
talk to
explanation for what
138
1
I
!
she was doing?
2
.l'-'lR. MELENEY:
3
MR. PARK:
Yes,
sir,
she did.
And you were satisfied with
4
that explanation based upon your experience
5
her?
6
MR. MELENEY:
7
MR.
Yes, sir,
PARK:
And
I
8
I was.
her
explanation
included her preparing an outline?
9
10
~vith
MR. MELENEY:
Yes, sir, at the time it
did.
11
MR. PARK:
12
CHAlfu~N
13
MR. LECHNER:
Thank you.
THOMAS:
Judge Lechner.
Dr. Monk,
in addition to
14
typing
15
ever,
16
putting thoughts
17
an example of how a good paragraph might look on
an
when
outline
a
from
student
on a
time-to-time, did you
was
having
a
problem
paper, give that student
paper?
19
MS.
20
class,
21
textbooks and
22
and provide
23
looked like.
24
We
25
the
If
"IONK:
English
it
class
were
had
an English
some wonderful
resources that you could pullout
them
with
would
go
what
a
good paragraph
online and look at some
paragraphs and \-Ihat they should look
like.
So,
I'
C&llE
139
1
the
answer
to
2
resources to provide that
3
of what a good paragraph would look like.
MR.
4
that
would be yes,
student with examples
Did you ever provide,
LECHNER:
5
personally, an example of
6
like?
I
7
MS.
MONK:
8
recall ever doing that.
9
doing that.
I would use
what
one
have
no
-- I do not
do not
recall ever
I
would look
Could I just -- I knO\; this may not
10
be the time, but
11
Meleney
12
do
say
that Mr.
times and seen me
doing exactly
the same thing
13
with
pencil
14
computer.
and
walked
to
my office many
pen
have
want
by
a
would
I
The technology
15
of the
as
just
16
But many
17
did for the students, for them
well
as with the
made
it easier.
outlines and the things that I
to
se~
it in my
18
own
19
them with a pen and a pencil as opposed to doing
20
them with a keyboard.
handwriting
21
and
MR. LECHNER:
scribbling, because I did
Now, did you ever type a
22
portion of a paper for --
23
draft, a
24
the final?
25
I
am
portion of
a draft
MS. MONK:
Sometimes
talking about a
before you got to
they would hand
I
1
:::&llH
140
1
me a
2
and their English was so poor, that for me to be
3
able to talk with the student I had to get it in
4
a format that I could read
5
able to talk to them about it.
draft where
6
So,
their handwriting was so poor
and that
there were times that I would take
7
their handwritten drafts and
8
computer
9
them on
10
11
so
that
the
the screen
put them
and try
to determine where
the mistakes were.
I would write the spelling exactly the
wy they had the
13
words would go exactly where it was.
14
to put it in a better format, and
15
I used technology to do it.
17
into the
two of us could look at
12
16
I would be
spelling.
MR. LECHNER:
that you used
to
put
The
Okay.
it
on
order
of the
I just had
that is where
Now, that format
the
screen, the
l8
COP.1puter,
19
paper and put it
20
same
21
correct?
way
a"
the
that
did
on the
student
22
MS. MONK:
23
MR. LECHNER:
24
25
take it from the
was
screen in
handwrote
exactly the
it;
is that
Correct.
Once
it
was
up there,
did you and the student work on improving it?
MS. MONK:
The student and I worked on
i
141
I
1
improving it.
2
Kurzweil.
I
used --
3
program
4
Kurzweil would
5
it and I would say,
6
sentence read.
7
say it the way you wanted to say it?'!
Kurz~<Jeil
that
reads
again, I
reader
a
is
sentence
read the
talk about
a
wonderful
and
then
you just
heard that
How could that be said?
That word
as
sentence we would stop
l'Okay,
They would say,
8
I
We
Did you
I'No, that didn't sound
9
right.
is not the word I would have
10
used."
11
able
12
they would correct their problems.
I, So when they
to
diagnose
MR.
13
heard
it,
they
would be
their own problems, and then
LECHNER:
Again,
using
your
14
example of
somebody with a second-grade reading
15
level, I
16
understand how
17
sophistication to take that, as you suggest, and
am having
a little
a second
difficult time to
grader would have that
[&llH 142
1
the very gifted range and with just a little bit
2
of guidance they could
3
grade writing level or that second-grade reading
4
level,
5
understand what they needed to change.
and
with
my
then
guidance
MR. LECHNER:
6
take
My
that second-
be
asking how you could make it better.
8
did you
9
grade reading or writing level to
10
help this
to
question was beyond
7
do to
able
What else
person with a second-
put a product
in a collegiate level finished product?
MS.
11
12
really,
the
13
Kurzweil
14
vocabulary
15
simple
16
would have
17
would
last
because
be
they
that
a
able
three
the
years,
Kurzweil
word,
word
In
MONK:
they
Thesaurus
to
look
years
it
would
could
look
that--
was
the
allow like a
at
a very
had used and then they
at
their
basis, they
up different words on
yJOuld be
18
their Thesaurus, and they
19
the
20
which of those words might fit into theirs.
meanings
of
those
The vocabulary,
21
22
greater
than
23
So,
24
that really
25
did.
the
there was the
vlords I
a
lot
second-grade
use of
allowed me
able to get
and then decide
of
times was
reading level.
that technology piece
to be able to do what I
I
I
18
their Thesaurus, and they
19
the
20
which of those words might fit into theirs.
rneanip.gs
of
those
The vocabulary,
21
22
greater
than
the
23
So, there was the
24
that really
25
did.
would be
"lords, and then decide
a
lot
second-grade
use of
allowed me
able to get
of
times was
reading level.
that technology piece
to be able to do what I
I ( [,
C&llH 143
1
MR. LECHNER:
Aside
from
changing a
2
word
3
portion of the sentence to another
4
paragraph, what
did you do to help them develop
5
a
a
6
talking about,
7
understand what the subject matter of
8
should or shouldn't be?
9
MS.
or
aside
critique
from
of
moving
book
or what
MONK:
11
with.
12
their reading level.
13
technology
14
summaries that
15
condensed version of a book.
16
17
and
vocabulary
you
place in the
Potuto
First of all,
men
from one
was
did you do to help them
very intellectual
that
word
Professor
10
Their
a
women
these were
that
can
I work
was far greater than
Just basically
was
the essay
available,
get
that
using the
there
makes
are
it a
Just really go through dissecting what
it is that they needed to
do.
They understand
~nte~lectually.
18
it
19
difference between
20
disability
21
retardation.
22
is
think
I
a
not
student
a
that
with
student
23
above.
24
specifically with an I.Q.
25
level of
~any
the
a learning
Itlith
They are a student who are
is
mental
average or
of the students, I can remember one
second grade.
of 145
It
and a reading
doesn't take a lot
(
144
1
for them with the right guidance
2
understand what
3
have the patience and the time to sit
4
and guide
5
~... ord,
6
they need to do.
they need
to be
able to
to do as long as you
with them
them and dissect it word for word for
so they have a clear understanding of what
~1R.
7
One
LECHNER:
8
follow up Professor Potuto.
9
time
after
time,
the
after
cities
more question to
If
reading
Tale
did this
of Two
10
Cities, and
11
incorrectly, would you throw up your hands?
MS. MONK:
12
I
were
you
still identified
never threw my hands up,
13
but I also had to honor the student's ability to
14
walk away,
15
and take what they had and turn it
16
be for
17
in.
and they could walk away at any time
a failing
in.
It may
grade, but they would turn it
18
YiR.
LECHNER:
Did
you
of
your
ever
in your
own
thought
19
position
20
processes in any stage
21
student was working on, for any student?
include
any
of the
22
MS. MONK:
23
CHAlfu'ffiN THOMAS:
24
NS. POT(JTO:
25
product that the
Not to my knowledge.
I
Professor Potuto.
have just one question
over here for Mr. Battle, I think it is for you,
145
1
with regard to NCAA rules.
2
who
3
penmanship, would
4
the bad penmanship
5
work with that student on the project?
'''as
not
learning
that
~1R.
7
MS. POTUTO:
8
MR.
benefit.
disabled
a tutor
6
9
If you had a student
be able
the
ABELE:
could then
be
Why?
That
would be an extra
providing
that person.
11
them they \·lOuld not be able to.
12
to type out
tutor
10
I
with bad
I would say no.
ABELE:
We would
but
just think
MS. JENNINGS:
I
a
service to
that our answer to
am
curious
about a
13
background question.
14
the Academic
15
athletes
16
didnlt understand, and it is just a general one.
17
use
Center.
them?
I don't
You have computer labs in
Do most
of the student-
One
my questions,
understand
of
why
I
the students
18
aren't goir.g
19
their handwritten papers in whatever,
20
improper, and why they are not using things like
21
Spell Check and
22
during this process.
23
MR.
~n and using the computers
were being made.
25
lab.
Check
to
incorrect,
assist them
What am I missing?
MELENEY:
24
We have
Grammar
to type
We have
All
of those efforts
a 32-station computer
eight tutorial
rooms that had a
[&llH 146
1
computer in
2
being used consistently every day on the hour.
3
them.
So,
nearly 500
We ran
4
tutorial, so from 7:00
5
facility was full.
6
MS.
those
a.m.
JENNINGS:
computers were
sessions a week in
to
9:00
Did
it
serve
7
learning disabled
8
to a different office for assistance?
9
or were
MR. MELENEY:
For direct accommodation
to the classroom, they were to be sent
11
but
12
learning
13
student-athlete.
14
in-house
disabled
and
MS. JENNINGS:
15
Monk,
16
there
17
materials that any of
no
were
for
to SORe,
conducted
the
you are
reference
for
non-disabled
Is there a reason,
why the students
is
the
they redirected over
10
services
p.m. our
Dr.
talking about--
anywhere in any of the
your
students
ever used
18
that approach.
MS. MONK:
19
When I was working with the
20
student, they were assigned
21
of time,
22
was a two-hour session.
23
be something
24
their two-hour session with me.
25
it was
It
to me
for a period
usually an hour.
Sometimes it
So,
the process would
that we t'JOuld be working on during
was
an
individualized
session.
~47
1
They used
2
had lots of other tutors other than me.
3
they
4
disability, or a language
5
going to be assigned to me for a period of time,
6
and it was my
7
during that period of time.
had
8
9
the computer
a
So,
lab, they
writing
disability,
a
But if
reading
disability, they were
responsibility to
in
used -- they
work with them
saying that that would be part
of my work session
\"lith them.
If
I sent them
10
out to
11
lost the time that we needed in order to conduct
12
the
13
that we were going through at the time.
14
do it
tutoring
on their
session
MS. JENNINGS:
own, then we would have
or
the training session
But
if
I understand,
15
sometimes there
16
you gave them where a student would come in with
17
a draft of a paper written, and you would put it
are some examples where I think
l8
into the computer because it was
19
to read and easier for you to discuss with them.
20
It wasn't to type it up for them, it was to make
21
it easier for you to work with them.
Did
22
you
ever
easier for you
tell the students, you
23
know,
when you are coming in
tomorrow, when you
24
come
back
you go in and type
25
this up in the meantime, and then come
tomorrow,'
could
back and
I
1_
r:&llH
148
we will talk about it from there?
2
cIS. ,10NK:
Yes.
That did occur on a
3
day-to-day
4
information.
5
very good at doing
6
had worked
with over a period of, say!
7
four years,
they got very good with that.
8
9
basis
that
In fact,
on their USB.
11
tutoring session
12
and bolts of what it
13
accomplish.
16
l7
given
that
that.
The students
that I
three or
already in
to us
We could throw it on the computer
screen and use
15
were
toward the end, they got
They would bring it
10
14
they
the
time
we
had
in
our hour
to really get down to the nuts
was
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
they
were
trying to
Any other questions
by the Committee?
MR.
LECHNER:
Just
one
follow-up.
When you were helping the students in taking the
18
j~mble
19
screen!
20
right or how they would want to change
21
you got the product where the student wanted it,
22
did you download it to his
23
so he could use it in the future?
they
and
had
then
written
you
24
MS. MONK:
25
MS. POTUTO:
and
it
put
on the
vlould ask if it sounded
USB or
it, when
Thumb drives
Yes.
I want to get back to Ms.
I'
C&l1H
149
1
Thompson,
2
which ,;as the word edit in (a).
3
know from you or Mr. Didion, what do you contend
4
that she
did, not what editing is or isn't, but
5
what
you
6
information you rely to make that determination?
7
And
8
athletes
9
information?
do
did
10
to where
you
I
contend
MR. DIDION:
part of your question.
12
appears as it does.
13
talked
14
hand, and it
15
institution
16
during our interviews,
the
was
and
I looked
started
any
I
I
did
and
of
,;hose
student-
to
this
the first
That's why the paragraph
we
reviewed
information
information
at
on
the
will answer
When
then
on this,
would like to
regard
with
11
17
she
interview
yourself
about
really
that
it and
we had at
provided
by the
information we developed
it was primarily me.
this
and
believed that
18
what she had done was provided a service and had
19
not provided
20
Because of that I believed that it was --
21
MS.
any
content
POTUTO:
to
the individuals.
You are giving me your
22
conclusion.
23
contend that
24
and from whose information in the record that we
25
have that you drew that conclusion.
I want to know what it
she did
is that you
that constituted editing,
~&l1H
'-50
1
DIDION:
~lR.
What
I believed editing
2
was, was taking
3
athletes,
4
student-athletes to assist in putting together a
5
coherent paper,
6
thoughts or own ideas, but using the information
7
that the student-athletes had developed on their
8
own.
9
information
using
And
the
from
the student-
information
my
source
of
information
information
11
the institution and by Ms. Thompson.
13
the
not interjecting any of her own
10
12
from
from
interviews
MS. POTUTO:
Can
was
that were done by
you
tell
me \.hich
interviews, which student-athletes?
14
MS. THOMPSON:
15
bit
16
institution
17
five
of
background
Let me provide a little
with
initially
student-athletes
this.
When
the
reported that there were
that
reported
they had
18
received
19
questioned
20
with
21
happened, what was actually done?
or
typing
the
exactly
in
auditors,
22
The institution
23
needed
24
athletes.
25
Patuto,
to
re-interview
editing
the
assistance,
I
initial interviews
questioned exactly what
and I
agreed that we
some of those student-
In order to answer your question, f:
the
one
interview
that
I did, I was
::&~lE
151.
1
there prese~:
2
were concerned.
3
Smrt and I co~ducted that interview.
as
far
That
as
the 3tuden~-a~h~etes
was
Chuck
4
5
[Nas in tervi ewed
twice
the
by
6
So,
7
interview, it
8
the
9
information
institution,
as
well as
11
although --
12
as
was only
informatio~
10
far
that
that
was
my
well
as
presence
in the
with
I
Then
relying
am
on
is
reported by Dr. Monk, as
as well
MS. POTUTO:
as
Let
as
me try
and
this.
What
13
information did
14
decide that
15
as an extra benefit, and not editing an academic
16
conduct?
17
All
they give
you that
led you to
it constituted anything but editing
I
have
is conclusions here, and
pers~n
18
this
19
on and
20
But I
21
that they said.
22
somethi~g
said
MS.
are relying
else f:1ight tave said somet:ting.
som~body
have no
that you
idea wr.at
THOMPSON:
it is
As
you are saying
it
relates
23
to
said
24
specifically that
Dr. Monk
25
that my papers rl'lould
typed my papers "so
make better
sense."
That
[&llH
152
1
is the
2
the
3
concerned.
information that
typing
MS.
4
5
and
as
I relied
far
POTUTO:
as
the
And
tha t
on as far as
editing
is
~'ias
an
in
interview that the University did?
6
MS. THOMPSON:
7
~IS.
POTUTO:
And
I
to find
assume
you never
8
went back
9
meant by "SO it would make better sense"?
10
to try
Yes.
MS. THOMPSON:
the
No, I did not.
11
read
interview
12
institution provided me.
13
MR. PARK:
14
MS. POTUTO:
15
MR. PARK:
out from him what he
from
notes
I
just
what
the
Let me ask a question.
Sure.
And
then
I
16
back.
17
recording or transcription of that?
Interview notes,
will
pass it
I take it there was no
:-1S.
19
~s
20
lIi.
21
because
22
actual tape
23
I did listen to.
24
25
cnderstand~ng
my
fact,
recorded
I
did
instit~~ion
-- it
that those interviews were,
with
receive
recordi~g
~IR.
ihe
THOM?SON:
PARK:
fro~
~ve
the interview, which
are talking about
and you said that you read a memorandum of
'-&llE
153
1
an in.terview.
2
~IS.
THO~IPSON:
3
~{IR.
PARK:
4
~
~
am wondering whether the
interview r...,as recorded and transcribed.
MS. THOMPSON:
6
the
7
with -
8
second interview that !
9
did with
first
interview
1
did
11
interview with -
an
12
that
the institution did
recorded.
The
did as well as with -- I
PARK:
summary
There
of
that particular
is no
transcript in
our record for us to look at, is there?
HS. THONPSON:
There is no transcript,
but there is the interview summary.
l6
17
is my understanding
in fact,
was/
interview
~lR.
14
15
It
was actually recorded and I
10
13
am sorry.
:'1R.
this is
PARK:
a bone
Mr.
I have
Price
will
tell you
picked for a long time.
18
S01
19
as to
20
have the original
21
exactly what the man said?
what you are saying is we should believe you
what was
said in there, because we don't
of
a
transcription
22
MS. THOMPSON:
23
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
24
25
to know
Yes, that is correct.
Does the institution
have any documentation on that?
MS. KARPINSKI:
We
do
not
have the
::::&llH
154
1
transcriptiG~
2
have
3
provide
4
But
5
do have summaries.
of
all
"-12
of
the tapes
here.
i~terviews
the
transcriptions
of
~lS.
then.
this,
8
institut~on
9
him so they would make better
that
We
said
to the
Dr. Monk typed some papers for
10
paLticipated in
11
that right, or not?
12
11S.
Let me go back to whe L2 I
POTUTO:
was on
15
and could
those tapes to you.
7
14
taped
do not have a transcription with
6
13
We certainly
sense.
You then
a second interview with him, is
~lS.
THONPSON:
NS.
POTUTO:
NQt
with
but with
all
we
have
So,
Okay.
is
to
say
II
with
to make
16
better sense", but you never went back to try to
17
find out what that
meant,
what
her assistance
18
was?
19
MS. TH8MPSON:
20
~lS
21
~s
Okay.
POTUTO:
CQrrect.
':'hen
where we don't have transcripts,
22
do
23
intervie~1?
you
24
2S
.
That
sa.y
~'IS.
the
first
tha.t
THOMPSON:
interview,
said
I
but
was
from
in
r.ot
tHe
get t:)
ap-d what
the
first
present at
the interview
I' I'
II
155
notes
2
said that
Dr. Monk
typed two papers
for him.
3
iYIS .
4
nothing abol1t
5
the typing?
for
there is
editing assistance,
6
MS. THOMPSON:
7
MS.
student-athlete,
9
forgotten,
it is purely
Yes.
POTUTO:
8
10
So
POTUTO :
Now,
whose
there is a third
name
have
I
What did
MS.
say?
said that Dr.
THO~lPSON:
11
Honk typed papers for him because he
12
typist, and
during
13
14
IS 16
17
Monk
provided
now
said
a slow
that
the 2006-2007
papers.
f,.,,3S
acadenic year, Dr.
So,
as it relates to
, it was typing papers as well.
MS. POTUTO:
three students
All
right.
So for the
',."ho are editing, what we have is
18
t"o who were for typing
19
said she
20
sense, but we have
21
what "that student meant by that phrase?
no
more
MS. THOMPSON:
23
~IS.
the
25
other
and
a
third who
typed papers so they would make better
22
24
only
students
has
with
as to
No, no.
All right.
POTUTO:
University
information
no
other
[
!
[
,
And I assume
intervievJs with
whom Dr. Monk worked, who
I
-r 1 :00
1
talked about the
2
provided,
3
interviews where they talked
4
assistar:ce that 'Nas provided?
or
~IS.
5
kind
an
I
of
assiscance
wrong?
KARPINSKI:
liJe
Do you have other
about the
and intervi.e'",red
7
to try
8
provided to them.
On
9
student was
told by Dr.
two weeks ago
to get to the bottom of exactly what she
he was
example
provided
Mo~k
by a
to make an
attempt to write half the paper on his own.
'IS. THONPSON:
11
12
Identify him.
13
MS.
14
several athletes
kir.d of
I went back
do.
6
10
that ste
Who
is
KARPINSKI:
was told if the paper was to
that student?
So,
be a six-page
15
paper on
a certain subject, he had to arrive in
16
her office having attempted at least half of the
17
pa~er.
So, he said he would make sure he walked
I
,
I 18
II
in there with three pages written.
Then he would hand
19
that to
Dr.
~lonk,
I' 20
either
21
drive, and they
would
22
that three-page
paper when
23
six-page paper.
That is one example.
24
25
in
handwritten
MS. POTUTO:
form or through his USB
sit
But
there
together and
he left
would be a
I .
I
JI
that doesn't really
identify whether I am getting three pages to six
II
I
I
157
It was
appropriate tutorial assistance
1
pages.
2
or it crossed the line.
Do you
3
have any information from that
4
student-athlete as to how
5
three to six pages?
MS. KARPINSKI:
6
that paper
He
indicated -- what
7
he said to me is we wrote it together.
8
I
9
back and forth.
left
there
together
believing
Well, he
and
grew from
I think
that it was,
just said
I guess,
they wrote
10
it
not really able to articulate
11
any more specifically how the paper grew.
MS. POTUTO:
12
13
interviewed
14
give
15
regard to
16
typing?
17
from her
you
several
any
more
All right.
others.
concrete
You said you
Did any of them
particulars with
the kind of assistance independent of
He said
when you
he also
got typing assistance
went back
two weeks ago, or
18
rca f
{"lS. KAHPINSKI:
20
office,
21
turned in.
I
a
six-page
:1S. POTU TO :
23
I1S. KARPINSKI:
25 I
had
22
24
1-
he
vJell
"'ten he left her
paper ready to be
She did not type for him?
She
him.
MS. POTUTO:
f
Okay.
did not
type for
C&llP. ~S8
Kl~RPINSKI
[viS.
:
is
/'
2
another student that
3
said
4
this time he indicated
5
typed.
he
went
6
in
I
re-interviet-led.
there and he had his paper--
he always
had his paper
He did not bring his USB drive, but he
7
always brought it typed.
8
marks
9
recommendations
10
his
on
paper
or
And
and
thoughts
she
r
would make
corrections
and
of
how
he could
I think his exact words
~ere
she would
I
improve his paper.
11
12
fix
13
corrections and turn his paper in.
things,
14
15
I
and
CHAIRHAN
he
would
THOMAS:
then
That
make
those
'I
is
'j,
?
16
MS. KARPINSKI:
17
CHAIRl'1..z\N THOMAS:
Correct.
f'I..nything further?
J I
I~S.
KARP~NSKI:
V-J3.S
I~ ) 19
another student I interviewed, and his was -- he
20
indicated that
21
believe his
22
in ttere with, and --
23
MS. POTOTO:
24
MS. KARPINSKI:
25
I, II
i,
! I
he could
he
lost
was mostly
his
USB
drive,
so I
written, that te walked
Handwritten, do you mean?
f.ar.dwritten, because
not transfer it back and forth because
IB
MS.
was
I'.ARPINSKI:
19
another student I interviewed, and his was -- he
20
indicated that
21
believe his
22
in there with, and
was
he
lost
rnost~y
MS. POTUTO:
24
MS. KARPINSKI:
he could
USB
drive,
so I
written, that he walked
23
25
his
Handwritten, do you mean?
Har.dwritten, because
not transfer it back and forth because
':::'&:ilH
159
he didn't have a USB drive.
2
from
3
paper to be turned ip-.
that
4
was
wr..en
any particulars
6
interviews taped?
),
But again you
besides the
MS. KARPINSKI:
8
MS. POTUTO:
any
don't have
fact -- were these
(
7
9
my impression
he left he had a fi.nished
MS. POTUTO:
5
So,
Okay.
as
particulars
Yes, they were.
to
But you don't have
what
it
was,
10
assistance was?
11
that it
12
as to what the assistance was or wasn't?
was done
MS.
13
comments
You said you
that
had an impression
wr..en he left.
KARPINSKI:
the
the
Yes,
No particulars
the
kind
of
student-athletes made to me
was --
:6
MS. PC'I'UTO:
17
MS. KARPINSKI:
or somebody else?
I
would say
all focr
18
that I interviewed were very similar in that she
19
would take their --
20
21
MS.
interviews that
22
POTUTO:
Well,
are
T
23
what
24
where it is coming from and when.
25
are
re-
you are talking about, -
, and so forth,
you
those
talk~ng
MS. KARPINSKI:
about?
Right.
guess?
Is that
I want to kr.ow
These student-
160
athletes
origi~ally
were
interviewed
by
the
~
took
2
auditcrs before I arrived on campus.
3
those auditors' interviews and then went back to
4
the student-athletes and said, I'Okay.
5
understand
6
about what Dr. Monk provided to
7
NS. POTUTO:
8
exactly
weeks ago, you
what
10
MS. POivTO:
and I have three
~2
and
Tell me
yOU,ll
Thi.s was two
na~es
Correct.
You said there were four,
so
far:
Who is the fourth? MS. KARPINSKI:
l3
I
14
three two weeks ago.
The
15
makes
is
17
I need t
sa~d?
~1
16
meant.
All right.
MS. KARPINSKI:
9
you
So,
up
the
fourth
was
apologize.
other
It was
student that
re-interviewed
last
fall related to hi.s receiving typir.g services.
I
=-61
1
~S.
2
1-1r.
3
ir.terviews that you just
4
did two weeks ago?
Hargrove
r.ave
~~r.
':'her.
POTUTO:
a
copy
Hargrove,
does
these
three
of
that you
talked about
A~l
MS. KARPINSKI:
of our interviews
6
were made available at Florida State.
7
custodial site
8
not there yet, no.
for those.
had a
We
Those last three are
1'
i MS.
9
POTU~O:
So, he hasn't
heard them \ I
10
or seer.
them?
All right.
up one little matter,
and
I just want to clear it
happens
a while
and it was Mr. Hargrove with regard to, was
'-2
ago,
13
it,
14
where he
15
first
that
said that
interview
you were
talking about
the characterization of the
didn't
jive
with
what
the
I' \
16
student-athlete
17
interview?
said
on
th2 tape of the first
18
19
iYIS .
POTU':'O :
20
consistent.
21
Does
22
actually said?
l
anybody
23
l1S.
24
available at
25
quotations
They
both
had
been
don't want to leave this hanging.
have
what
KARPINSKI:
the custodial
that
took
the
student-athlete
The
tape again was
site.
from
the
I just have
tape in my
162
nates.
2
He said that
Dr.
i.Vlonk
\vould
with his papers.
"He
3
couldn't
type
very
fast so she
4
would help with typing or anything
5
needed help
6
paper for him she typed his thoughts.
7
it up.
8
auditors on May 30,
with.
She never
else that he
a~tually
wrote his
She wrote
(
That was in his first interview by the
II
MR.
9
10
hel.p him
times.
107.
was interviewed three
S~R::
During the
first one,
in. IYlay,
'07,
he
111
reported what Stacey said,
12
with papers by typing because he was slow at it.
13
It was always his thoughts, but she typed them.
14
that she
Then Minnix goes back
fall
and
he
generally,
as
to
denied what he reported earlier on.
17
third
that
him
in the
we understand it,
16
interview
helped him
happened
It
recently
is the
with
I
18
Joyce and I when he
19
saying
20
assistance.
no,
that
started
he
down
didn't
the
path of
receive
any
:
21
Joyce confronts him, I guess, and says
22
you
23
with the auditor.
24
said,
25
first time."
said
this
"Well,
earlier
in the first interview
Then it is my recollection he
I will go with whatever I said the
[&llE 163
1
We said,
"We don't '!lant you to go witr.
2
that.
J
He said,
4
time," which was during the auditor's interviefll.
We want your recollection at this point."
5
lIT
will go with
1-1S •
POTUTO :
6
disagree
7
interviews one,
8
9
10
with
what
MR.
that I
had,
specifically
11
what I
Hr.
was
just
HARGROVE:
reported
for
over
this
specific
representative
13
ago, two
from
weeks
as to
ago,
my
office
twice to
people.
I went a month or so ago, and I
12
do you
The only information
~vent
I
look
Hargrove,
three, and what was said?
two,
and
said the first
sent a
again ten days
specifically
looking for
14
The
16
documents as
17
first
reason
because
'Has
it relates
and
to
I
had
two
The
it is attached in my
is
supplemental response that
19
thought it
20
but somehow there was
21
recording.
22
yo~
folks
have.
I
was odd that he refused to be taped,
So
I
ItJent
a
tape
or
back.
there
I
was a
sent
a
23
representative from my office again to make sure
24
that I
2S
didn I t miss it.
that
::::
have,
~vhat
you have from
you
have
what
I have
164
atta.::::hed
as
2
I
have
2
Respor.se, and
3
provided
4
was submitted on
5
what I have.
7
'lias
8
to whether
9
just heard
11
also
me,
my
Supp~erner.tal
what
Ms. Thompson
the reinstatement letter that
behalf.
MS. POTUTQ:
6
10
to
to
Exhibit
,where
Bet I
you had
tho~ght
That's
you said it
the disagreement as
what was reported was accurate.
t~em
describe
the
You
first interview,
the secop.d interview and the third interview.
That is
what I war.ted to get ba::::k to,
12
to find out if you have
13
memory or ip.forrnation as to the three intervie',l}s
14
is different from what He just heard.
a different
-- if your
I '
15
~lR.
recollect~on
17
HARGROVE:
is
Substantively,
r:e.
My
that it was Mr. Smrt that asked
the question, it was not Ms. Thompson.
I could
I
18
be mistaken on that.
19
is ~lr. Surt that
20
question was
21
was saying was inconsistent.
22
My recollection
asked
the
q'.1estior.,
indicated to
As
was
.L
15
that it
and the
that what he
lister.ing
to
the
ty/Q
23
interviews, I didn't see the inconsistency based
24
on
25
assertion,
what
kne'N
t~e
Dr.
~lon k
had
question contained
said.
The
within it, a
-~&llH
165
1
version
that
what
he
2
inconsistent
3
wasn't hearing it that
4
those two interviews,
5
MS. POTUTO:
(,;,lith
was
what
he
way.
saying
now
r,.Jas
had said before,
So,
I
-.-
have heard
yes.
Now I am really confused.
thought I heard Ms. Karpinski say in the first
6
I
7
interview he
8
second interview he told
9
the third
said she
typed the paper, and the
Mr. Minnix
interview somebody
said to him,
10
you said in an earlier interview
11
a paper."
He said,
12
I stand on it."
14
I don't know where --
So,
you \.Jill
MR. HARGROVE:
l6
off.
17
cases
what
that she typed
I
have to
I am sorry.
I heard your question.
where
"But
"If that is what I said, then
13
15
no, and in
help me.
I cut you
This is one of the
described
in
my opening
18
statement was troublesome.
19
asked the question exactly what do you mean when
20
you say typed the paper?
21
answer to that question.
22
I know
I
knew the
what that answer is.
It is as
23
what Dr. Monk described.
24
that
25
question exactly what do
question.
I would like to have
I
Because
So,
still
I wanted
want
to
ask
to ask
that
you mean specifically?
-'=&llH
166
1
And
2
confident, would lead
3
I want
4
LhaL quesLion before I came here today.
the
ar.S;"ler
to know.
5
to
that
~IR.
8
MS. POTUTO:
HARGROVE:
it before
11
tried to interview the
12
the question.
Did you try
to inLerview
Not yet.
Well,
Now,
14
to
15
La do is to get --
co~pel
you wanted to get
You wanted
to have
you came here today, and you have not
people who
donlt have a method
L
him to talk to me.
MR.
simply ask him?
could answer
I am really perplexed.
MR. H.ZIRGROVE:
13
l7
additional questions.
the answer to the ques tion.
10
16
am very
?
7
9
to
I
I wanted to know the answer to
MS. POTUTO:
6
question,
LECHNER:
What I
Excuse
me.
have tried
Did you
18
19
MR. IiARGROVE:
could track
him down and ask him.
20
21
- suppose I
MR.
LECHNER:
No,
T
as ked did you
simply ask whether he would talk to you?
22
MR. HARGROVE:
23
CHAIRr-JAN THOMAS:
24
We have
25
l-(a).
No.
Any other questions?
had some exhaustive conversations about
Are there
any other
comments on i-(a)?
C&~lH
167
Can we close out on l-(a)
2
ar-d take a lunch break
and corne back and continue?
Any
3
other
questions
on
1-(al?
If
4
there are no questions, we will recess for lunch
5
and come back at 1:00 o'clock.
6
(NOON RECESS. l
We
CHAlfu'IAN THOMAS:
7
proceedings
Thank you.
will begin with
Professor Potuto will
8
the
here.
9
have one question before
we move
10
that is after Professor Patuto
11
MS. POTUTO:
~'Je
to l-(b), and
will move on.
This is really quick, and
I
guess
it
would
be to
12
it
13
Professor Monk
14
the Case Summary,
15
about eight lines down before that first bullet,
16
"Monk reported that
17
and editing accommodations.
is
just
one.
or Ms. Thompson.
there is a
she
statement under 1,
provided
II
On Page 1-6 of
these typing
i
I
,
18
I
just
looked
at
the
part
of the
19
November 7th interview that you have here in the
20
Case Summary.
21
was her word or your word.
22
I
just wondered whether editing
MS. THOMPSON:
I believe, if
23
the
24
probably was my word to be honest.
25
interview
on
November
MS. POTUTO:
7,
Thank you.
2007,
I recall
editing
: . 68
C::EAIRL\L\N
2
~-
(b).
THO~IAS:
Okay.
Let'
5
move to
The staff.
3
CHAI&"Ll\N
THOYIAS:
As
it relates to
4
Sl1bparagraph
5
provisior.s
6
provided correct answers for a Sports Psychology
7
quiz
8
9
(b) ,
of
Dr.
violated
iYlon k
unethical
conduct
when
the
she
to
'. and
requested
anST.oJers oP.to
to
an online
quiz form
enter those
on behalf of
10
11
12
Regarding
13
institution and
14
substantial
15
facts.
16
fraudulent a=t,
17
mistake.
Dr.
the
agreement
~!onk
Subparagraph
enforcemer.t
as
it
believes she
the
(b) ,
staff
relates
did not
are in
to
the
commi t a
but she believes that she made a
18
Therefore,
there is one issue for this
19
Committee
20
Subparagraph (b).
21
to a level of unethical conduct as it relates to
22
academic fraud as set forth in Subparagraph (b)?
23
to
consider
Did
as
it
Dr. Monk's
Regarding this
issue,
relates
to
actions rise
the enforcement
24
staff
committed
academic
25
fraud and that her actions rose to the
level of
believes
that
Monk
c8
give us
her position
response from
20
21
on this.
Dr. Monk,
As
- read the
that she is saying that
had the answers and she gave answers to
22
Maybe
23
'was
24
information
25
Monk.
an
issue
I
misread
between
reported
by
said
he
that.
the
I thought it
J:"eliability
versus
did
not
of
Dr.
develop any
C&llH 178
answers for that, and that he knew notting about
2
this until after the fact.
3
thought
~le
seemed credible
4
because it was unrealistic for an athlete to say
5
he didn't
6
provide them.
7
that the allegation should be found as alleged.
So,
based upon
8
CHAIR~N
9
Dr. Monk or
10
if he,
provide answers
THO,ffiS:
Okay.
Dr.
Thank you.
Hargrove,
MR.
HARGROVE:
which one
It will be Dr.
12
have outlined the response in my
13
don I t
14
I am sure.
have
anything to add.
So,
NS.
have stated
~/lonk.
I
response ar.d I
She can add to it,
feel free to do so.
CHAI~~ffiN
17
that we thought
wants to speak?
11
16
in fact, did
~IONK:
THOMAS;
The
Dr. Monk.
facts
are
there.
those facts in every interview, and
18
they have not wavered.
19
did make a mistake.
20
was a mistake that I
21
back, but it was a mistake that I made.
22
23
CHAIRMAN
there.
I did not commit fraud.
wish
THOMAS:
I
could
Thank
I
It
have taken
you.
Any
questions?
24
25
The facts are
"1S. POTUTO:
staff,
actually.
Yes.
I
take
Mine
is
of the
it in alleging the
[&l~H
171
1
facts in
2
athletes and not Professor Monk's description of
3
what occurred?
(b) ,
you
believe
4
MS. THONPSON:
5
NS. POTUTO:
6
That's correct.
Why
MR. DIDION:
8
I had to give you an
9
would
be
wasn't
she charged
that
it
Ms. Potuto, honestly,
anstver to
if
that, my answer
didn't occur to me that she
should be.
11
12
the student-
with 10.1-(d)?
7
10
that
NS. POTUTO:
Now that it
has occurred
to you, should it have been charged?
13
MR. DIDION:
Yes,
14
~IS.
POTUTO:
Any other questions?
15
~lR.
PARK:
I
I do believe so.
have one.
16
have looked at Exhibit 1-9 to
17
response,
which
is
what
Dr. Monk,
I
the institution's
I understand to be a
18
test sr.eet that 'tIas s:..:bmitted, or
:9
in
20
name.
makirrg
the
onlirre submissior. in
21
Have you got that?
22
MS. MONK:
Yes, sir.
23
MR. PARK:
All right.
24
at the
25
in, were the answers
time that
that was used
My question is
you tDld
filled in
to send that
by
1
PROCEEDINGS BEFORZ THE DIVISION I
2
COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS OF THE
3
4
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION In Re:
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY )
5
Case No. M286
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
6
BE IT
7
October,
8
hearing
9
Infractions
2008,
REMEMBERED,
that on this 18th day of
the above-entitled matter comes on for
before of
the The
Division
National
Committee
I
Collegiate
10
Association,
11
Indianapolis,
12
a.m., with Chairman Dennis Thomas presiding.
13
Indiana,
The other
14
are:
15
Mmes.
16
Jennings.
in
meeting
the
beginning
17
Athletic
Westin
Hotel,
8:30
o'clock
at
members of the Committee present
Messrs. Alfred IIJimlJ Lechner, Josephine
on
Potuto,
Messrs. John
Andrea
Black,
James Park, Jr.; Myers
Britton
and
Eileen"
Banowsky and
18
Melissa Conboy, new members of the Committee, were in
19
attendance.
20 21
Ms. Naima Stevenson is present representing
the NCAA General Counsel's Office.
22
Mr.
Shepard
23
Committees on Infractions,
24
Director
25
Cheryl
for DeWees,
the
Cooper,
Director
for
the
Mr. Jim Elworth, Assistant
Committees
Coordinator
on for
Infractions, the
Ms.
Cowmittees on
I
{ .
i 1'
1 I;
I
I I' i
I' I•
C&llH
-2-
1
Infractions,
2
Admin~strative
3
Infractions were also present.
4
and
Karen
t-ls.
Assistant
to
the
Martin,
Committees on
present
are Mr. Jerry Parkinson
5
and Mr. Brian Halloran,
Coordinators of Appeals
6
for the Infractions Committee.
Also
7
APPEARANCES
8
9
The National
NCAA
Enforcement
Collegiate
Athletic
10
represented
11
Didion, Ameen
Najjar,
12
Strobel;
and
Mmes.
13
Hannah,
Julie
Roe,
14
Henderson, Kelly Graddy.
15
by
Messrs.
Present
of
the
Association
was
David
Kevin
Price,
Lennon
Joyce
David
and Chris
Thompson, Stephanie
Rachel
on
Staff
Baker,
behalf
of
Jennifer
Florida State
16
University are
17
Beckham,
18
Abele, Mark Meleney,
19
and Mmes. Betty Steffens and Stacey Karpinski.
20 of
22
present.
24
25
Randy
T.K.
Spetman,
Wetherell, Joseph
Brian
Chuck
Smrt,
Battle,
Larry
Bill Shults;
Mr. Shane Lyons, Associate Coromissioner
21
23
Messrs.
the
Atlantic
Ms.
Coast
Brenda
Conference,
t10nk
was
also
and her attorney of
record, Mr. Brant Hargrove, appear in person.
I I' I' II i
I '
I ):
l I :
I \
'
I, r
II
I
r II I) I
I \
I ,
~&llH
3
1
(Whereupon,
2
are had and entered of record.)
the
following proceedings
3
4
CHAIR.'1AN
THOMAS:
5
everyone.
6
University.
7
Commissioner
8
Conference and
9
Committee on Infractions.
10
This is Case No.
Good
M286, Florida State
My name is Dennis Thomas.
of
the
morning,
Mid-Eastern
I am the
Athletic
the Vice-Chair of the Division I
With me today hearing this case are to
11
my
12
Athletics Emeritus at Indiana
13
Alfred "Jim"
14
New York Law firm of Case & White,
15
a
16
Jersey.
l7
two public members.
right,
Federal
Andrea
Myers,
the
Director
of
State University;
Lechner, Jr., an attorney with the
District
Hr. Lechner
Judge,
is one
and formerly
District
of
New
of the Committee's
18
my
~o
Larson
left
19
Richard H.
20
Law at
21
the
22
Jennings,
23
Michigan
24
attorney with
the law
25
of Lexington,
Kentucky.
~s
Josephine Potu to, the
Professor
of Constitutional
the University of Nebraska,
former
chair
the
of
this
general
University;
Lincoln, and
Committee;
counsel
James
Park,
at
Eileen
Central
Jr.,
r
an
firm of Frost Brown Todd
Mr.
Park
is a public
I'
\
I
4
me:nber.
2
Seated
3
Shep
4
Infractions,
5
Director.
Cooper I
6
At
at
the
the
table
Director
and
Jim
the
table
to my right is
for
Committees on
Elworth,
to
the
my
Assistant
left
are
the
7
Committee's
8
Jerry Parkinson,
9
the University of Wyoming, and Brian Halloran of
two
Coordinators
Dean of
10
Malibu,
California,
11
counsel
of
12
company
13
business.
14
Pai~ted
i..r:.volved
ivIs.
Naima
15
Counsel's Office,
16
herself
17
Ur.iversity.
between
is
the
the School
the
manager
Hills
in
of Appeals: Dean
Wind
the
and
general
Developers, a
renewable
Stevenson,
seated
of Law at
at
NCAA I
the
S
pm.;er
General
table by
enforcement staff and the
Where is Naima?
There you are.
18
Cheryl
the
DeWees,
Committee's
19
Coordinator,
20
Administrative Assistant, are seated together at
21
the table
22
Ms. Martin
23
logistical needs during the hearing.
24
25
and
Karen Martin, the Committee's
behind Ms. Stevenson.
are
available
Also here
Bowen &
to
today is
Associates, a
Ms. DeWees and
assist
~lr.
with any
John Bowen, of
Certified Court Reporter
I I
from
2
Kansas
City,
to
take
the record in the
case.
3
three
Finally,
recently
appointed
4
members
5
hearing as observers and are seated
6
back of the room with Ms. DeWees and Ms. Nartin.
7
They are John Black, a new
8
Black
9
Shughart,
10
Missouri.
11
of
is
the
a
Committee
partner
Thomson
Also
&
here
are
attending this
in the very
public member.
with
the
Kilroy
of
law
Mr.
firm
Kansas
of
City,
is Melissa "Missy" Conboy,
12
the
13
Woman's Administrator at the University of Notre
14
Dame, and Britton Banowsky,
15
Conference USA.
16
17
Deputy
Director
Before
I
of
Athletics
and Senior
the Commissioner of
turn to other instructions,
let me explain how this microphone vlorks.
It is
18
a very sophisticated abject.
On each microphone
19
is a small
black
You
20
microphone
by
21
your microphone
22
collar on the top will be illuminated.
23
button.
pushing
is
When you
24
your
microphone,
25
microphones
except
that
activated
activate your
button.
You know
because
the red
push the button and activate
you
turn
mine.
off So,
all
other
please,
be
I
6
1
careful.
2
someone
3
activate it when you wish to speak.
Don't activate
else
4
is
your microphone while
speaking.
But
sure to
You don't need to press your button to
5
turn off
6
happens when the next speaker pushes
7
button.
8
you are done, all that will
9
cut off
your microphone
as that automatically
his or her
If you push the microphone button when
the next speaker.
10
this.
11
to activate
12
the button.
happen is
you will
So, please, don't do
If the person sitting next to you forgets
13
14
be
his or
her microphone, please push
Finally, if
you
have
a
cell phone,
please turn it off or place it in a silent mode. President
15
16
introduce
17
from the University?
yourself
Wetherel~,
will you please
and
representatives
other
18
'1R.
\i'JETHEREL:' :
19
Chairman.
20
Florida State
21
right.
22
general counsel for Florida state.
23
I
am
T.K.
Wetherell,
~
University.
Betty
Steffens
is
President of
will go down to my
here,
who
is the
Chuck Smrt, who served as a consultant
24
for us on this case,
25
the Provost
is
with us.
of Florida
State is
Larry Abele,
here.
Stacey
7
1
Karpinski,
2
consultant on the case.
3
Dr.
also
with
Joe
Chuckrs
Beckham,
Rep for
5
our Athletic
6
Associate
7
Mark
8
Athletic Director for Academic
9
current
Athletic
Meleney,
Randy
Director.
who
a
Spetman, who is
Brian Battle, who is an
Director
is
Academic
and
who is the Faculty
4
Florida State.
firm
the
for
former
Compliance.
Associate
Service, and our
Services
Director
for
10
Athletics, Bill Shults.
11
the table is Shane Lyons, who is the ACC Rep for
12
us.
13
14
And at
CHAI~~N THO~ffiS:
the far
end of
Thank you, President
Wetherell.
15
Mr.
16
introduced.
17
yourself?
Lyons,
Would
you
you
have
like
already
been
to re-introduce
18
~!R.
19
CHAI~~ffiN
20
21
22
23
24
25
LYONS:
That is okay.
THO~~S:
All right.
Thank
you.
Ms. Monk, will you,
please, introduce
yourself and your counsel?
MS. MONK:
I am Dr. Brenda Monk, and I
served as a learning specialist at Florida State
University from
2001 until 2007.
Sitting to my
) I
I
I
:':':-&llH
8
1
left is Brant Hargrove,
2
today.
3
CHAI&~N
4
Mr. Price.
5
MR.
THOMAS:
HARGROVE:
6
question, if I may.
7
that when
8
many and we are few.
9
have Allison
I
representing me
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have a
mentioned
to
Dr. Monk
we walked into the room that they are
I would
Monk sit
10
has assisted me on
11
aid me
12
that is allowable.
13
too.
14
who is
if I
next to
some of
could have
CHAI&~N
ask permission to
me, because she
this, and
it would
her sit next to me,
if
If it is not,
that is fine.
THOMAS:
have
"Ie
15
addressed that
16
comes about
17
she will be allowed to participate.
issue, and
already
when the information
that is relevant to your assistant,
Thank you.
18
"lR. HARGROVE:
19
CHp.~IRL'vJAN
20
MR.
Thank you.
THOMAS:
PRICE:
you.
I
22
immediate
23
responsible for presenting the case today, David
24
Didion and Joyce Thompson.
are
the
Enforcement.
am David
Price,
left
of
Price.
21
25
Vice-President
Thank
Y]r.
two
Then we have Directors
'Lo my
individuals
of Enforcement
9
1
Stephanie
Ameen
Najjar.
2
Rachel Baker is our Director of Agents,
Gambling
3
& Amateurism
4
President for Membership Services.
Hannah,
5
Julie
activities.
Jennifer
Roe,
Kevin Lennon is Vice-
Henderson
and
6
are
7
staff, and Andrew Perrott is a
B
us.
9
Strobel
10
with
our
He is
is
student-athlete
not here
our
see.
of
Enforcement
THOMAS:
CHAlfu~N
for
I would also like to
12
note
13
Services,
14
are any
15
student-athlete's reinstatement.
17
And Chris
Secondary Violations.
11
16
reinstatement
legal intern for
today, I
Director
Kelly Groddy
that
the
Vice-President
Kevin
Lennon,
questions from
In
informally.
these
If
Membership
is here in case there
the Committee regarding
hearings
you
for
wish
we proceed rather
to
take
oft your
18
jacket,
19
~velcome
20
YOurself of
21
room.
22
please
fee~
free
to
do so.
to star..d up and move about and
Yoc are
to avail
the refreshments in the back of the
We usually spend about
23
hour and
24
any time you
25
please feel free to do so.
a half
need
and then
to
step
an hour
or an
take a break.
If at
out
of
the room!
One exception is for
I~&
IlH
lO
1
Dr.
~loI:k.
2
As you kr.otv,
3
allegations
4
you need to step out,
5
accommodate you.
6
are
You
you
should be
discussed
were
previously
Notice of Allegations
8
staff, as
9
received from the Committee,
10
does
11
materials
12
received
13
have developed.
not
14
and
If
by
sent
advised
in the
the enforcement
in a supplemental letter you
receive
which
or concern you.
just signal me and we will
7
well as
here when
all
the
which
of
that the Committee
the information and
staff
enforcement
the
has
enforcement staff may
In particular, the Committee
does not
IS
see
16
staff has
17
the Committee has seen is a list of items that I
all
the
information
placed in
ttat the enforcement
the custodial
file.
What
18
am going to read now.
19
provided to you.
20
record of the case as it exists right now at the
21
start of this hearing.
22
\vhat
That list
a~so
tas been
This list contains the written
the
Corruuittee
knoHs about this
23
case is what is contained in
24
report currently includes the following items:
25
Notice of Inquiry.
this record.
The
11
Notice of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The
A~legations.
institution's
response to Notice
of Allegations.
Brenda Monk's response
to
the Notice
of Allegations.
A letter from David Hart regarding the
University corrective actions.
A letter from
President
Wetherell in
response to Dave Hart's letter.
10
The Case Summary.
11
Brenda Monk's supplemental response to
12
13
the Notice of Allegations.
A
memo
14
Reinstatement
15
from the Committee.
16
17
from
the
in
response
staff
Letters from
consultant,
Chuck
Florida
Smrt,
Student-Athlete
to questions
State's outside
expressing
concern
regardir.g
Comm'::'ttee1s
the
19
information
20
Reinstatement staff.
from
the
request
for
Student-Athlete
The University1s response to questions
21
22
posed by
23
October 14th memo at random sent to Chuck Smrt.
If there
24
25
the Cowmittee
not part
on october 14th, and an
are any
materials which are
of the record, which I just listed and
12
1
that you want the
2
you
3
have
4
during this hearing.
must
that
5
ask
Committee
introduced
Com~ittee
6
determine what
7
made a part of the record.
8
9
Let
consider,
t~e~
permission from the Committee to
information
The
to
has
additional
me
the discretion to
information
emphasize
this case constitutes the
as evidence
will be
that the record in
list of
items that I
In addition, any other items
10
just read
11
accepted into the record during this
12
well,
13
as discussed here today that will be transcribed
14
by Mr. Bowen.
15
of
to you.
course, and
hearing as
the information presented
The Committee's
findings in this case
16
will be based on this record.
17
adverse findings
against the
Should
there be
University or any
18
party involved that results
19
record
20
will constitute the full and complete
21
appeal.
and
the
there
23
memoranda transcripts and
24
are
25
party
provided
by
the
an
appeal,
this
Committee's infractions report
Finally,
22
~n
to
may
other
be
record on
copies
of
documents that
the University or an involved
enforcement
staff
during
this
C&l:LH 13
1
hearing.
2
the
3
today! shearing.
These
enforcement
4
documents must be returned to
staff
at
the
conclusion
of
,'Ie have set aside the day to hear this
5
case.
6
complete exploration
of the issues t
7
through the hearing.
We will spend as much time
8
as
for
9
circumstances
We
is
are
here
to
necessary
out
of
When
11
satisfied that you have
12
to do that.
l3
finish
At
the
you
which
10
we
undertake
today,
end
we
to
a
full and
not to rush
explain
the
this
case arose.
want
you
had a
to
be
full opportunity
of the hearing today, we
14
would
15
University regarding
16
ar.d corrective actions,
l7
reasoning the institution used in imposing these
like
to
have
a
discussion
with
the
its self-imposed penalties
and
in
particular the
13
sar.ctions
19
actions.
20
and
implementing
the
c:Jrrective
Based upon the information that may be
21
discussed in the hearing today,
22
been
23
submitted, the Committee
24
its own
25
or to amend the allegations to
raised
in
the
initiative to
or that may have
information
has
the
previously
authority on
make additional findings
conform with the
~&l:!.H
14
1
information presented today.
2
Additional findings
3
bylaw violations,
4
lack
5
monitor.
of
6
including
institutional
may relate to any
unethical conduct,
control,
or failure to
We have noted in particular that there
7
is an
8
the institution and an
9
against a former academic advisor.
allegation of
10
failure to monitor against
unethical conduct charge
if
Even
11
allegations,
12
that
the
13
the
evidence
14
justifies such action.
15
If
there
were
those here today
Committee
such
should understand
can make these findings if
presented
the
no
Committee
16
additional findings may be
17
inform all
parties and
to
the
Corrunittee
should decide that
appropriate,
it will
give the opportunity to
additio~al
18
respond.
19
to unethical
20
control or a failure
21
will
22
further
23
desire.
24
25
:f the
afford
conduct,
the
response
Each
the lack of
to monitor,
parties
after
an
in
the
instit~tiona:
the Committee
opportunity
hearing
violation
of Allegations, or
ipformation relates
if
they
for
so
charged in the Notice
enforcement staff's
C&llfi
IS
Case
is
Slarunary
2
vio2.ation
3
specifically
4
violation.
5
of
considered
the
be
a
as
a
secondary
staff,
enforcement
major
unless
legislation
NCAA
designated
If
to
the
6
institution or Dr. Monk believe that a violation
7
is secondary, including any initially alleged as
8
a secondary
9
that party must make that known to the Committee
violation by the enforcement staff,
10
at this
11
written submission, if any,
12
and arguments why it is secondary.
13
hearing and either then rest on its own
The
or present evidence
~vill
make
considering
all
Commi ttee
the
14
decision
15
information and arguments in the record.
16
17
after
Everyone
that any issues
here
related
of
final
the
today also should know
to
the
processing of
~8
this case
19
of the enforcement staff
20
the course of this hearing.
21
Failure
22
the course of the
23
of such
24
precludes raising these issues on appeal.
25
includes issues regarding the conduct
claim.
We now
to
must be
raise
raised during
suet claims during
hearing constitutes
a waiver
Among other things, such waiver
turn to
brief general opening
[&~lE
3...6
1
statements
2
staff.
3
to make
4
well as you, Mr. Lyons.
from
the
University
and
the NCAi\
Dr. Monk will be provided an opportenity
an opening
statement, if
you wish, as
5
After opening statements, we will turn
6
to the allegations contained in the Case Summary
7
and work through those.
vIe
8
allegations in
as they appear in the
9
Case Summary.
10
the order
After we have
"ill
considered
address the
all
of the
11
allegations,
12
from the University, Dr. Monk and the NCAA.
13
Lyons,
14
closing statement if you wish.
you
we
will
will have
have
closing statements
the opportunity to make a
15
Are there any questions?
16
MR. HARGROVE:
17
Mr.
Yes,
sir, I
have one.
On behalf of Dr. Monk, will I be allowed to make
18
the opening statement?
19
didn't mention me.
20
CHAIru~N
"feu mer,tioned
her, you
I just wanted to be sure.
THQ~ffiS:
Dr. Monk, are you
I' 21
agreeing
22
opening statement for you?
to
having
23
MS. MONK:
24
CHAlfu~N
25
Mr. Didion,
your
counsel
perform the
Yes, sir.
THOMAS:
Thank you.
have all of those who are
i
,
:::&l1E
'-7
at risk at this
2
MR.
DIDION:
Yes,
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
of the
they
have,
~IR.
8
CHAIR1'1AN
Eave all eligibility
DIDION:
They have.
THOMAS:
Are
there
any
instances in this case in which student-athletes
10
competed
11
the vacation of contests by the Committee?
12
13
Mr.
issues been resolved?
7
9
inforned
Chair.
5
6
been
date, time and place of the hearing?
3
4
hearing
while
ineligible
MR. DIDION:
and might result in
I believe there were,
those have been addressed by the
14
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
15
MS. POTUTO:
and
i~stitution.
Okay.
I just want to put on the
16
record now that as I understand the institution,
17
they
related
to
NCAA
championships,
and the
18
Coruni t tee
19
season and conference.
has
some
::p.:.estioES
about
regular
I' 20
MR.
DIDION:
21
CHAIR.'1AN
That's correct.
THO~IAS:
22
opening statements.
23
statements
24
case and not recitation
25
to particular
should
We will now turn to
Let me emphasize that these
be
general overviews of the
of information relevant
allegations.
Please be as brief
1~~&llH
18
1
2
3
state~ents.
as possible with the opening
President Wetherell, are you ready for
the institutional opening statement?
4
MR. WETHERELL:
5
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
6
~1R.
Chairman.
8
provided
9
statement, and they
me
Thank
consultants
with
some
and
notes
started
10
you for
11
reflecting upon that a
12
can think
13
here today, quite frankly.
14
Thank you.
WETHERELL:
7
The
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
off
you,
various people
to
make
this
with thanking
the opportunity to be here today.
moment, I
Mr.
Upon
don't think I
of a place I would rather not be than
Florida
State
be
here.
15
frankly,
16
institution than this.
17
that we
to
is
embarrassed, quite
We
This
are
is
a
better
not something
are proud of, and it is not necessarily
apprec~ate
18
our finest nOllr.
19
and the
20
as we went through this process.
21
But we do
support that
the help
we received from the NCAA
I kind of reflect
22
and remember
23
and in the final
24
.it well
25
best performance of all.
back
to
Apollo 13
that they started off to the moon,
may have
analysis never
been NASA'S
made that, but
most probable or
II
I !
!
,
,
I
'
i9
I think Florida State will come out of
2
this a
3
might be.
4
provided
5
knowledge,
6
facts of the case.
better institution, as embarrassed as we
You have read the case, you have been
the
information.
there is
To the best of my
real~y
no
It evolved
in a
8
expect it to evolve.
The
9
reviewed
after
matter
way that
NCAA
we
10
pursuant to policy and
11
very few
12
report and made very few changes.
l3
we did not
came
There were
We then reacted to that
So, the facts are
pretty simple.
14
seems
15
surface, but I think as you have read
16
you hear
17
out that this is a very complex issue.
a
relatively
testimony today
down and
had sent it up
procedures.
changes made.
like
in the
We self-reported this case.
7
the
conflict
simple
case
It
on the
it and as
you are going to find
I i
18
Those of
you
in
the
~aw
profession
19
will
20
the challenges that the institution had
21
as
22
proceeding.
particularly
we
23
went
We
note
through
would
some of the
various
point
out
24
doesn't
25
searched throughout NCAA records
fit
in
the
NCAA
~ssues
and
to face
segments of this
that
Manual.
it really
We
have
and can't find
I I
j
20
1
a case
2
this many different optior.s.
3
This case does not
that is
of this
4
by any coach, any
5
boosters,
6
directly
7
~hatrs
ass~stant
donors,
involved
The facts of
student-athlete
went
involve misconduct
coach.
no
with
highly unusual.
8
9
no
particular nature with
There are no
trainers,
teams
in
We admit that.
the
to
matter
the
are
Ii
at
12
about another student-athlete
13
and do some work.
14
The
17
is
who
student-attlete
involved
happened to be
20
While
the student-athlete was asked
basically responded by saying he
he
that a
Academic Support
Center to do some work as they should do.
center,
one
athletics.
~o
that
no
_1!
some
athlete
otter tto~
was
to come
number
~s
one
not coming,
things.
That
18
19
20
fer
given
out
appropriately and
21
legally
22
student-athlete
23
student-athlete Dumber
24
a qciz on that day, an onlir.e quiz.
25
,I
6e was working
tearlS
number
one
.J.,.,.
tte combine.
was
advised
Tte
that
two was supposed to take
The studeht-athlete number one said he
21
is
not
coming,
2
test.
3
the
4
University.
he
is
not going to take that
He was then advised to sit
test
by
5
a
staff
The athlete
person at Florida state
getting instructions from
6
a staff
7
ask to do this, he was not even
8
course.
person did
9
The
down and take
as he was told.
student-athlete
He did not
enrolled in the
took
the
test,
10
left the center,
reported
that
11
His
reported
it to the Compliance
12
Center,
13
to NCAA regulations.
coach
14
then
and FSU began
The
issue
15
who
16
Athletic
Department
17
was my decision that
was
going
to
to
his coach.
an investigation pursuant
at
do
that point in time was
the
investigation!
the
or
some other entity?
It
we
would
let
some other
entity
do
chat
~nvest~gation
involving a coach or
20
point in time,
since it was
an ath:etic
~ot
issue at that
it was a personnel matter. 11
We
21
at
determined
23
cOhjunction with
24
believed
25
relations issue at that point in time.
HR staff at
dealir.g
should
Inspector
General
were
State
the
22
we
Florida
that
do
F~orida
with
an
it
in
State.
we
employee
I.
22
1
The
employee
was
so
notified!
the
2
athletic director was so notified because he had
3
beer. told
4
that process.
5
by the
Part
of
coach, and
that
6
included
7
in the course.
8
athletes
9
basically as they went
10
was not
11
up.
12
talking
investigation
much that
to student-athletes that were
was
to,
amongst other people, and
through that
~V'e
didn I t
only
at
student-athlete basically
14
know what the big problem is.
15
student mentor
16
thing.
l7
other problems.
or tutor,
alerted
us
process it
know,
the
13
That
process
There were some 30-some student-
talked
It
we moved ahead in
didn I t show
end
told us
~vhen
one
that: don't
If you talk
to a
you could do the same that
there
was some
18
You have to realize that each of these
19
students
20
information
21
specifically
22
investigated.
23
'Nas
asked
to
regarding
told
COoe
that
that
and
system.
they
were
give
us
They were
not
I'
being
Their eligibility was not in question,
24
and their scholarship was
25
when
a
student-athlete
in no
then
jeopardy.
But
notified us that
I
23
1
some students may have violated NCl'<.A
2
time ~vhen
3
another issue, it created
4
issues that we had to face.
5
At that
rules at a
supposedly helping us resolve
he was
a
series
point in
of complex
time, we decided we
6
had more than a personnel issue, we had
7
issue,
8
help us.
9
determined that there was inappropriate behavior
10
and
we
We
Mr. Smrt and his firm to
hired
went
an NCAA
through
that
process and
in our minds with a specific tutor.
11
We looked
at
other
12
We could
l3
were other tutors involved.
14
issues involved.
find no conclusive evidence that there
We have a system at Florida State that
15
runs
16
grades of
17
students.
the
grades
of
the course,
We
looked
each
athlete against the
and the
at
grades of other
those
files and we
18
determ~r.eQ
19
spring
20
well,
of
that there
'2007,
actually
that
in
o~e
was
there
the
fall
section
in the
were anomalies--
there
were some
I' 21
anomalies, but
22
to cause an alarm.
they were not significant enough
23
In
24
significant.
25
a faculty member
the
spring
of
'07 1
they
were
What we found out was that we had
that
was
offering
an online
I'
C&llH
24
1
course,
2
for a number of years and
3
had allowed
4
the final exam,
5
exam, and
6
and tests
7
grade.
that
had been offering that same course
in previous semesters
students to work together,
to work as a group
to print
on the final
not only the final exam but all exams
and
I
8
It
turn
was
those
in
perfectly
9
violation of the
student's
10
violation, quite
frankly,
11
the course.
and
receive a
acceptable
honor
of
code
and no
and no
the guidelines of
12
The
13
changed that.
14
but he did
15
There was no requirement that a student take the
16
test in a secured testing site.
17
They could
faculty
He
change
member
subsequently
did not change the syllabus,
the
online
take
it
test procedure.
from
their dorm
~8
room,
19
sign on to.
20
used Blackboard
21
began talking to other students and
22
did they do and when did they do it?
23
they
24
circumstances, there was no violation.
25
~ake
it from any computer that they could
I t did go ttrough a proces s tha t
worked
If, on
like most institutions use.
as
a
group
~ve
v.Je
asking what
under
Because if
certain
the other hand, if they did it
I'
I
25
in the fall or spring of
'07, and
the rules of
2
the course
3
was
4
understand that a rogue tutor had basically made
5
copies of the
6
memory, and as he worked with students gave some
7
of those answers to the various
8
received more answers than others.
and the
potentially
test,
As
9
a
we
testing were changed,
violation.
committed
interviewed
We
there
came
those
to
tests to
students.
those
Some
30-some
10
students before,
11
started back
12
of those students did receive help.
13
difficult time to define exactly what help was.
14
with them, we determined that some
Some
students
15
with the
16
Answer A,
17
students sat in
tutor
Bf
that we went through before and
saying,
This
actually took the test
yes,
you
should mark
or whatever was appropriate.
the
was a
Testing
Center
Some
and heard
people
19
discussing
tests,
and
marked
papers
accordingly.
20
So, we began to realize that
we had a
21
problem with
22
member.
23
particularly
24
grapevine sometimes works better than e-mail.
25
that one
As you
might
an
The system
course, that one faculty
expect,
Athletic
and
the
any university,
Departmen t,
the
students started
26
talking to
one another.
The NCAA rules, as we
2
understand them from the
Enforcement Committee,
3
state
4
violation we were obligated to sit
5
from specific participation in the sport.
that
6
when
This
was
7
term! so obviously
8
sports
9
that point in time.
where
10
much
11
violation?
do
12
we
we
knew
in
that
the
our
sit
The
them
for?
on those
began
16
other issues became into play.
What is the
the
precedence, ranged
15
those
was
NCAA
from a game to a full
on
What
Enforcement, those
14
based
became how
TtJith
violations!
17
and spring
was
question
13
make
a
that student
winter
emphasis
was
individuals were participating at
As we worked
to
there
season depending.
decisions,
difference
As tile
all kinds of
in
one gamer
18
two
19
determining factor?
20
In some cases students and student-athletes went
21
directly to the honor court.
games,
22
five
Some
games
or
ten?
What was the
How did you determine this?
students
went
directly
to the
23
faculty mernber.
24
pass,
25
faculty member based upon whatever conversations
if
you
Some
want
"to
students basically had a
call
it
that,
from a
:&llH
27
they had with that particular faculty member.
2
began
vIe
to
submit
to
the
3
Reinstatement Committee
reinstatements after we
4
had
some
5
contests,
6
finally
7
Reinstatement
8
with these, we want to batch them and do them as
9
a group.
sat
students
or
for
whatever
that
became
it
number
happened to be, and
cumbersome
Committee
of games,
said
because
the
we canlt keep up
We said fine.
10
In addition to that, while all of this
11
is going on, certain athletes were
12
~vell,
13
talk to so and so, and we had that issue to deal
14
with.
if
15
you are
going to bust me,
then saying,
you need to
We had some coaches that said, well,
16
am not
sure we
17
because
~.."hat
are getting
I
the fair treatment
about this team or that team?
We,
18
ir. essence,
19
could go
20
come
21
consultants
22
decision
23
get some
24
those student-athletes.
25
had a
to a
through
!....
I
system
fac~lty
our
and
member,
system
and
where students
the honor court,
talk
to
the
be faced with some preliminary
ith us trying
kind of
going
to go
to the
NCAA and
across-the-board treatment of
We came together in, I believe it was,
-=-&llH 28
1
October, remembering
2
and students left
3
those
4
difficult.
students
5
that surrmer
campus,
at
and
that
6
athletes
came
back,
\ve
7
talking
to
the
NCAA
8
Reinstatement
9
"orking.
We can't get
when student-
down
and
began
Enforcement
you know,
to
to find
in time became
fall
sat
said,
trying
point
Basically, in the
and
came in there
the
and
this is not
bottom
of this
10
without some understanding of what the penalties
11
are going to be.
12
\'Ie had
the
probability
of
13
card
14
different
15
priorities.
16
played.
17
sports! all involved in that process.
being
played
by
some
students
were
We
the
We
had
had
major
the race
athletes,
getting
gender
sports
saying
different
card
being
versus
minor
18
~'Je
had
some
students that vlere very
19
forthcoming and said, you know,
20
definition of
21
I did that.
22
do that.
23
time to really
24
than he said-she said,
25
if
that is your
inappropriate actions,
then, yes,
We had others who said no,
I didn't
We didn't have a way at that point in
know
t"hat
was
happening other
so to speak.
At that point in time,
the provost and
~&llH
29
1
the Technology
2
did what
we believe
3
history.
Because
4
every student
5
there was
6
it, where they took it l
7
everybody
8
payrolls with
9
tutors were in the room
10
11
Department came
together and we
is unpreceder.ted in NCAA's
this
was
an
online course,
had to take that test online, and
a computer
took
it,
record of
when they took
who was in the room when
and
we
then
cross-filed
that, and we could determine what
when
who
took
it and
what happened.
Most of
the time
you don't have that
12
type of information in a paper-pencil test.
13
simply know
14
but you don't know to the
15
punches a button and says it is A, Bl C or D.
16
17
the hour
Whe~
of the room
a
a~d
that the
You
test was taken,
effect when
a person
student is sitting in the back
says
I
heard
someone holler
18
across the
19
such is, and they had already
20
C and
21
well, if it was
22
that and
change my
23
So, I am
guilty,
24
actually sharing
25
type of things that the NCAA had to have.
room the
the answer
answer to
was Sf
number such and
marked,
let's say
and that student says
inappropriate
for
me
to hear
answer, then I guess I did.
versus
the
student
that information.
who was
That's the
~&LH
30
We knew
thac
program that
information
figured it out.
2
created a
3
with the
4
happened here
5
most honest are being penalized.
NCAA
and
because we
said,
you
know,
We sat
what has
is the students who have been the
We came to a conclusion that we needed
6
7
to go
back and re-interview all of the students
8
in those
9
we had,
classes, showing
them the information
and say do you really want to say this,
if you
10
with the understanding that
11
did something inappropriate, not trying to split
12
hairs and determine how bad it
13
vJould
14
other hand, you chose
15
then you
16
State.
17
receive
a
certain
was or
penalty.
to go
said yes,
not,
I
you
If, on the
a different route,
would lose your eligibility at Florida
When we went through
that process, we
18
came up with the number that you see before you.
19
In addition
20
began to
21
term I
22
contaminated
23
the spring semester.
that,
talk with
think
we
the
provost
the Faculty
began
course,
to
use
and myself
Senate and the
is
we
had a
particularly a section in
We made the determination, and I think
24
25
to
it is
probably somewhat
unprecedented, that_ 'I/e
31
stude~t-athletesf
1
would take all
2
what
3
retake that course
4
violated some procedure or not.
grade
5
they
The
made,
and they would have to
Hhether
Faculty
regardless of
they
Senate
admitted they
met
on that and
6
agreed, and we vacated that course
7
only.
8
process had we not been working
9
the NCAA Enforcement and Reinstatement, where we
10
could sit down and say He need you to be totally
11
honest, and here is the information, we probably
12
would not be here today.
13
So,
for athletes
we think that as you go through this
as closely with
Probably, what would have happened is,
14
because
15
certain athletes would have
16
counsel.
17
issues raised from parents I
it
had
There
already
would
started
begun to
to
happen,
get legal
have been all kinds of
media and everywhere
wou~d
18
else, and
we
have never been able to get
19
to the conclusion that we
got
to
and
that we
I' I
20
believe we have identified those individuals who
21
did get
22
inappropriate assistance.
inappropriate
We believe
23
24
identify
from
25
individuals
who
a
we believe
behavior
we have
staffing
participated
also been able to
standpoint
in
giving
those
that
~&llH
32
help,
reminding
you
that
was
in
some
counseled
student-athlete
3
course even though they didn't want the course.
The student-athletes
5
with
the
idea
6
"cheat".
7
They
8
athletes
9
graduation.
this
inappropriate
did
It is
is
how I am going to
of
the
course
for
not a required course, it is an
12
categories.
13
who had 4.0's and
students who
14
was not
that
does
count
that people
15
gain eligibility.
in
several
There were student involved in this
a course
Had we known
spring that
Most
this
need
elective
17
they cheated.
help.
11
16
course
not
this
didn't start off
We don't really believe
got
10
of
take
a
2
4
to
cases
we know
the
had 2.0's.
were put into to
information
now, and
It
in the
had we chosen to
II
18
vacate that course
the~,
had we known it, all of
those students would have been eligible to go to
20
summer school and retake
21
possibility of being I'ineligible",
Part of
22
a class
and avoid any
the conversation
that we had
and Reinstatement
was that if
23
with Enforcement
24
we went
25
and that matrix, and we had
through this and developed that profile
a student
who came
I .
I
[&llH
33
1
forward
and
honestly
gave us the information,
2
that would not affect
3
was part of the understanding that we worked off
4
of.
their eligibility.
That
So, we have gotten here today what you
5
6
see before you is that information.
7
the University
8
personnel matter,
9
they ,.ould be helpful to us, could be helpful to
was faced
with is
we advised
us, and
11
that
12
eligibility for their scholarship.
they
We
13
them at that point in time
could
told
we started a
the students that
10
didn't tell
The problem
be
jeopardizing
them
their
just the opposite.
We
14
then went back and reassessed where we were, and
15
told the
16
were.
17
talking about,
students the
exact truth
of where we
We defined exactly vJhat semesters we were
because under certain guidelines
'-8
they could literally take a copy of the
19
and write
20
violation.
the exam
test in
with that copy and be in no
It is not something we are proud of,
Ii 21
it is
22
course.
not something
the way
we want
to run a
23
The provost has had conversations with
24
the faculty member, but we would remind you that
25
we
have
a
unionized
faculty
and
a
union
I
I I
I-i
\ ' I
34
procedure that
2
we had
to recognize.
We had an
honor code that we had to recognize.
3
y.]e had a code
of conduct
that we had
4
to
5
interviewed once and said
6
presented
7
different and defined inappropriate
8
a different way, recanted that and then decided,
9
yes,
We
recognize.
with
had
data
students who had been
one thing,
that
then when
shOl,ed
something
behavior in
I did.
10
We had some students
who
came
to us
11
with their attorney or their mother or father or
12
person!
13
forthcoming.
14
information,
15
something I shouldn't have.
other,
significant
when
Others,
said
yeah,
16
But
l7
judgment, while this is
the
and
I
bottom
tvere
they
probably
line
saw
did
very
the
do
is that, in my
an embarrassing process
18
for the
State of
19
In
20
institutions in
particular,
Florida and for Florida State
because
isn I t
it
hOl'l
most
the State of Florida operate or
I I
21
we operate, we have learned a lot.
22
I am teaching
an
just
how the thing works.
see
course this
23
semester
24
converted
25
history course into an online course, and we are
a
to
online
political
science
in
a
I
Florida
1
35
I' 1
now going
2
put everybody
3
randomly select questions
4
the same questions each time.
through a
We
5
~n
process to,
first of all,
a monitored testing situation,
have
done
seen those
as
to using
a nunber of things and
6
you have
7
actions.
8
been as diligent as we were
9
when we found it,
But I
opposed
in some
of the corrective
really believe that had we not
in getting
on this
had we not created the profile
10
and matrix that we
11
attorneys or
12
NCAA not been as helpful to us as
13
\vould not be able to sit here today and tell you
14
as definitively as we can exactly what happened.
15
could
whomever they
We would have
16
we could
17
we are.
show
not say
~vi
students, their
wanted, and had the
strong
they were, we
suspicions,
but
thout a doubt this is where
I think if you read the report you will
fi~d
19
that basically that is what it says.
You
will
find
there
is very little
20
difference of opinion on the facts
21
The outcome
22
of conversation.
23
very seriously.
24
25
of the case.
of the case probably is some degree
Florida
Quite frankly,
are going to do.
We
State is
I don't
hope you
taking this
know what you
will accept the
36
1
penalties that
2
really doesn't matter because we are going to do
3
that no matter
The
4
we have placed upon ourself.
~"hat
you do.
issue
that
we
had
believed
6
share
7
but
8
those.
9
the student-athletes in this case.
the
the
The
also
needed
think,
share in
facts
13
we are.
CHAI~~N
of
THOMAS:
that
Chairman,
Florida State's standpoint how
17
the
Mr.
12
16
to
University was more culpable than
basically
15
needed to
responsibility of their actions,
11
14
was that we
student-athletes
University
I
10
the
that
5
in
It
the
is
matter, and from
we got
to where
"hank you, President
I'letherell.
Mr. Lyons,
opening statement?
do
you
wish
to
make an
;YJR. LYONS:
18
19
time r
~:ir.
I will forego that at this
I'
Chairman.
20
CHAIR.'1AN THmIAS:
Thank you.
21
Mr. Didion, does
the
22
preliminary
23
Allegation I?
24
25
conunents
MR. DIDION:
staff
turn
before
Mr.
Chair,
Hargrove's turn is before us.
have any
I
to
think Mr.
:~&llH
37
CHAI~~~N
THOMAS:
2
~1r.
3
MR. HARGROVE:
4
CHAI~'lAN
5
Thank you, sir.
THOMAS:
MR. HARGROVE:
I
do apologize for
That
is okay.
I kind
of figured they were going to go first any,"ay.
Many years
8
9
Hargrove.
overlooking you.
6
7
I am sorry.
ago, when I first became a
lawyer, I had an opportunity to try a
case, the
10
first case
11
It was a bench trial.
12
judge who
13
lawyer in the case of Gideon versus Wainwright.
14
I
ever
tried in front of the judge.
had denied
Mr. Gideon
It was
in front
of the
Mr. Gideon his right to a
was
a
criminal defendant
15
who vJas convicted and \-'las staying at the Florida
16
State motel.
17
Department
Mr. Wainwright was the head of the
of
Corrections
and
had the key to
18
that motel.
~lr.
19
Gideon
trial level.
had asked
20
at the
21
that right,
22
Mr. Gideon
23
established the principle
24
entitled to counsel.
25
The reason
went up
for an attorney
The trial judge denied him
to the
was allowed
Supreme Court,
to have a lawyer.
that
an
and
That
indigent is
I tell you that is because
C&11H 38
1
of the side story
2
about.
3
and
4
unnerved and being intimidated.
That
there
T
am going
to tell you
experience for me was unnerving,
is
This
5
that
distinction
a
is
an
between
unnerving position to be
6
in, both myself and more particularly
7
The side
8
particular
9
opposing counsel.
10
story is
judge
I went
was
the
fishing
12
learned
13
counsel.
the
of
I had just
fishing buddy of opposing
This was a bench trial.
14
buddy
into court that day, the judge
liked to chew on an unlit cigar, and
was
Dr. Monk.
that I had learned that this
11
he
being
balance it all out.
There was no
15
jury to
I was unnerved.
I
16
wasn't intimidated because I had had the benefit
17
of process of discovery, depositions, attendance
18
at interviews,
19
unnerved at the sideline events.
20
So,
those kinds of things.
anyway,
~ve
get
But I was
involved in the
21
trial and I called opposing counsel's client.
22
was representing
23
I called the opposing
24
had sued my agency.
25
I
the state
called
agency at the time.
counsel's
her
I
client.
They
as an adverse witness,
I
:'=&2.1H
39
i
,
I
1
and '.-.,reen I got her on
2
leading
3
"He is asking leading questions."
questions.
::: said,
4
as
an
the stand
I began askirrg
Opposing counsel objected.
"Well,
her
6
leading questions."
Opposing counsel then said,
7
"Well,
established
8
hostile."
9
witness
have called
T
5
he
adverse
Judge,
hasn't
said,
I
"Judge,
She
and I can ask her
that
don I t
I
she
is
have
to
is hostile because I have
10
establish that.
11
called her as a different kind of witness."
12
I
13
rephrase
14
without argument."
said,
"SO
my
that
question,
So, I
15
16
not ask
l7
asked two
we
can
so
But
move along, I will
we
can
move along
rephrased my question and I did
leading questions.
Well,
after I had
or three questions, the lady got mad.
18
She got real mad.
19
on his cigar, and he said, 'IWell, Frank, I think
20
Mr.
21
hostile.'1
22
Hargrove
has
The judge leaned back, chewed
established
that
she
is
She was hostile.
My point
is this:
From where vIe sit,
23
this is not an intimidating circumstance,
24
an
25
unnerving circumstance is because
unnerving
one.
The
reason
that
it is
is
an
we don't have
L.&llH 40
1
to be here.
2
surmise why.
3
to,
I
Mr. Goldsmith isn't here, and I can
He has basically said I don't have
am not going to,
Adam Wright is not here',
4
5
Dr. Monk and myself,
6
hands kind of tied behind our back.
I would
7
8
that Joyce
9
NCAA,
I
10
will
say
11
professional,
12
complaints.
14
have
said
it
to
'us to
be in
are here
take this
Thompson,
But it
13
and we
We are here,
who
w'ith our
opportunity to say
is
representing the
this behind her back and I
her
face,
helpful.
I
is an
she
has
got
have
having no subpoena power to get at
the whole truth, not just slivers of it,
16
be
l7
the system that we have
to
no
unnerving situation for
15
able
been
cross-examine anybody.
here.
But
to not
But that's
it
is an
18
unnerving situation
19
at in this forum everything.
At the
20
to
Dr.
to be
end
Monk,
of
in f,..,her.
this
can! t
!de
hearing,
get
as it
I believe that you will
21
relates
22
have much more clarity than you have now.
23
you have a plasma screen vision?
24
The reason you won't is because we have
25
had our
No,
Will
you won't.
kind of
hands tied behind our backs, because we
,
I
C&llH
41
have not been able to get at some
2
that
we
ultimately
3
because of the forum we are in.
So,
4
would
the question,
of the issues
like to get at just
then,
is why
are we
Why does it matter to us to be here when
5
here?
6
we donlt have to
7
number two, in a forum where just because of the
8
nature of the forum,
9
utilize those
10
be
number
here,
we have
one?
not been
And,
able to
things that let us get at all the
information.
I would reiterate
11
12
given us
all the
13
it
14
complaint.
I
is
attempting to
describe
16
from
17
intimidated.
relates
our
to
that
the
NCAA has
information that they have as
Dr.
am
perspective
That
is
not
my
complaining.
I
am
Monk.
not
to
you
the difference
being unnerved and being
We are unnerved.
It is a difficult
18
position
because we don1t know all of the
20
know that there is information that
21
going to
22
like
23
grapevine,
24
grapevine.
25
How do I
President
and
Do
I
know that?
Wetherell
I
have
have
the
be in
i~formation.
19
get.
to
I
you are not
Well, just
stated,
there
is a
talked
within
that
ability
to
compel
I'
C::&llH
42
1
testimony from that grapevine?
2
forum.
3
So, we are unnerved.
But
4
canlt
I
do not.
I
again,
I
I do not in this
present it
have
5
here?
6
am
7
though we don't have to be.
8
reasons.
asked why are we
You have got to be asking that.
going
to
tell
Number
9
you
one,
to you.
why
Well, I
we are here, even
We are here for two
Dr. Nonk firmly believes
10
that
11
difficulties
12
have in an academic setting.
13
to how
14
she has been portrayed
15
who has
been identified in the media as someone
16
who has
done something
17
wrong.
good
you
she has
folks
that
need
to
learning-disabled
know
the
students
Dr. Monk, contrary
been portrayed, and I would add
-- she
is the
only one
horribly fraudulent and
You have
18
got my
response.
s~e
19
going to belabor it.
But
20
is
professional,
21
submit
22
professional.
23
She
her
duty
to
as
you
a
she
is
thinks
you
ought
24
circumstance that
25
students in
exists
t~at
believes
that
and
the
to
am not
I
T
it
"lIould
consummate
know
the
for learning-disabled
an academic setting at a collegiate
43
1
level.
That is number one.
Number two, she does not like the fact
2
3
that she
has been
portrayed as unprofessional.
4
She is a professional.
5
that.
6
her, yes.
She
wants you
Those are the two reasons.
to know
I have helped
7
I am the dirty word, because
8
lawyer, but my objective here today, I hope -- I
9
am going to step
10
that
you
11
bypass me.
12
will
She is
aside,
take
and
the
here,
I
will
13
question you ask.
14
as long as
you
15
interrupt.
I don't intend to.
16
opportunity to add a
17
sincerely hope
opportunity
she
I am the
to just
answer every
She will answer the questions
want
to
ask
corr~ent
But my purpose here
them.
I
won't
I would like the
every now and then.
is not
a purpose
[
~8
that is
typically perceived
19
lawyer.
My purpose here is
20
is not
21
hamstrung nature under which we come
22
for those
23
and only those two reasons.
24
25
to obfuscate.
two reasons
as being
one of a
to facilitate.
:ct
I will explain to you the
before you
that I have articulated,
So, you have got my response.
the skeleton
,
of Dr. Brenda Monk.
That is
The blood and
['
::&llH
44
1
the sinews and the
2
here.
3
though I don't believe that at the end of it you
4
are going to have a crystal-clear picture.
I
would
rest of
urge
the story
you
is right
to pursue it,
even
It is kind of like many people in this
5
6
room.
I note they are probably around
7
age as
8
channels on a television and then you had a dot.
9
Well,
We are
11
dot.
12
of
13
works.
14
that.
15
getting it.
gro\"ling up, you had 12
at the beginning stage of that
You will have a
this
given
but
the
This is
And I
clear picture
nature
the person
am not
here to
of
hO\"l
at the end
this system
who can facilitate
prevent you from
So, please feel free to bypass me.
Yes,
16
mel
\"las
that dot became ESPN.
10
l7
When I
me.
the same
she
you have
is represented
free access
by a lawyer,
to her.
We know
18
that she doesn't have to
be
here,
but
she is
19
going to stay here as long as you want her here.
20
So, thank you for -- no, I am not going to thar.k
21
you for the opportunity.
I agree with President Wetherell, this
22
23
is not an opportunity, this is
not an enjoyable
24
thing.
25
answer your questions honestly and as completely
But we are here with a determination to
C&llH
4S
1
as possible.
2
those answers, please feel free.
3
4
As many times as you want to hear
CHAIRMAN
Mr.
Didion,
6
preliminary
7
Allegation 1?
8
10
Thank
you,
Mr.
Hargrove.
5
9
THO~IAS:
So, thank you.
Chair.
does
the staff have any
corrunents
before
MR.
DIDION:
Yes.
Ms.
Thompson
is
we
turn
to
Thank you, Mr.
going
to
make the
opening statement for the enforcement staff.
11
CHAI~IAN
12
MS.
THOMAS:
THOMPSON:
Okay.
Ms. Thompson.
Members
of
the
13
Co~mittee,
this case primarily involves academic
14
fraud
the
15
moni tor its
16
the
17
Department.
in
failure
of
activities of
Athletics
Academic
the
institution to
its employees \vithin
Support
Services
The crux of
18
19
failure
of
the
this
case
Athletic
rests
in the
Academic
Support
I, 20
Services Department to
timely
communicate with
I
I, 21
the
institution's
22
learned
23
contributed
24
alleged
25
case.
of
and
compliance
potential
to
the
reported
NCAA
scope
staff
when
violations
it
which
and severity of the
violations
within
this
I,
C&2.1H
46
What we
C
that
intend to
the
focal
show the Committee
2
today is
point
of
this case
3
involves
4
affected a total of
5
sports, and involves NCAA bylaws governing extra
6
benefits, academic fraud and unethical conduct.
I' three
61
the
with
actions
student-athletes
The actions of
7
whose
individuals
the
in 11
involved parties,
institution's
failure
to
8
combined
9
monitor certain aspects of the Athletic Academic
10
Support Services
11
major infractions
12
core
13
protection of academic integrity.
mission
unit,. resulted in this serious
case,
of
,Vi th that
14
issues
said,
in
we
address
16
proceed with Allegation No.1.
CHAIRl'1AN THOMAS:
contradicts the
Association
15
17
the
the
which
are
and
the
prepared to
this case and ready to
Let's
proceed with
18
Alleg~tion
19
question.
No.
Yes,
1
Professor Potuto has a
i: MS. POTUTO:
20
21
clarify the
22
opening
23
unethical
24
improper academic
25
fraudulent
Yes,
I
wou~d
just like to
allegation itself, if I could.
describes
paragraph
conduct
academic
The
fraud,
when they knowingly provided
assistance
academic
credit
and
as
arranged for
a result of 61
( I
I'
I 1 I
C&llH
47
students.
2
Subparagraph
(a)
does
not
it.
3
academic fraud
4
questions.
5
and,
6
do
7
student-athlete's
8
constitute the kind of
9
is academic fraud under the bylaws?
One,
t~vo,
you
whether
if you
believe
MS.
10
citation to
it
have
So,
I have two
should
be there,
contend it shouldn I t be,
that
editing
term
an
portions
papers
does
then
of
a
not
academic assistance that
THOMPSON:
We
did
not
allege
11
unethical conduct in
12
we believed that the actions in Subparagraph (a)
13
involved extra
14
conduct
15
allege unethical conduct.
16
17
benefit
actions.
MS.
conclusion.
Subparagraph
So,
POTUTO:
I would
actions,
that's
That
(a), because
not unethical
why
gives
we didn't
me
your
like know why you believe
I'
I l8
that
editing
19
papers, which
20
constitute academic conduct under 10.1?
providi~g
MR.
21
assistance
on
term
is what you list in (a)1 does not
DIDION:
that
reviet-Jed the
information
23
didn't believe that
24
academic
25
activities that took place, we believe were more
it
The
to
we
22
fraud.
led
When
Subparagraph (a), we
rose
to
editing
the
level of
and the typing
I~
I
I
I,
.:::'&llH
48
in line being covered by the extra benefit bylaw
2
and not ethical conduct bylaw.
3
MS. POTUTO:
we
Well, I will
get to them
4
when
5
substantive
6
occurred,
7
think that doesn't rise to the level of academic
8
assistance that is improper under 10.1.
go
the
editing
allegation,
was
that
you
us
assume,
then,
agrees ~... ith
10
Corrunittee ultimately
11
is an
12
to redo the
13
paragraph
14
conduct and academic fraud.
15
it as anything else; is that correct?
assumption right
16
17
stem
the
contend
captures
that
the
you, and that
now, we would then have
paragraph,
MR. DIDION:
correct.
what
so I can get a better sense of why you
Let
9
into
this
because
all
It
under
the stem
unethical
doesn't capture
We may have to.
That is
~IS.
18
Committee
POTUTO:
Without
is
to
going
assuming where
19
the
go on any finding
20
whatsoever! if the Committee were to accept that
21
(a)
22
also make a finding with regard to it, and again
23
I am
24
to get at the
25
read,
is
not academic
not prejudging
would
way
assistance under 10.1,
and
anything, I am just trying
the
finding
would
have to
the University agree that that stem
:::&llH 49
paragraph has to separate out extra benefit from
2
the academic misconduct, the unethical conduct?
Obviously, in l-(al, we do
i'IR. SMRT:
3
4
not believe
it is
academic fraud,
5
talk about
6
fraud.
7
paragraph does not say extra benefits.
8
the bylaw citation is
why we
and we will
don't believe it is academic
That being said, I agree that that first
MS.
9
captures
10
paragraph
11
misconduct.
12
POTUTO:
Yes,
it
all
but
However,
the
under
first
academic
Mr. Hargrove, do you understand what I
13
am
talking
14
finding, not
15
that stem
16
academic misconduct,
17
least
that
about?
We
prejudging
are
not
anything,
making
it
any
is just
paragraph right now captures l-(al as
the
and that's
enforcement
not the
way at
staff believes it
18
should be constituted.
MR.
19
20
concern.
I
POTUTO:
22
question is in
23
reads,
24
was only exam questions in
25
answers carne later.
the
I
appreciate
your
have got it.
MS.
21
HARGROVE:
Paragraph
Okay.
(c).
Then my second
The
way this
study guide that you say was created
'05-06 1
and then the
C&llH
50
1
Is that
Because later you
accurate?
~Ionk
2
talk about Dr.
3
the
4
already in there.
5
out.
6
just have questions initially or were there some
7
answers in it the first time around?
anstvers I
which
sounds
So,
as though they are
I am just
trying to find
I think initially when
MS. THOMPSON:
the
vJright to review
As you understand it, does the study guide
8
9
asking Mr.
study
guide
was
created
it
10
questions, but
11
there were answers in the study guide.
12
~lS.
had
just
later on as the years progressed
POTUTO:
is in
Okay.
Then
my third
13
question here
that same paragraph.
14
understood the materials, there
15
questions that the professor used, and they were
16
randomly selected out with
17
test year, is that right, or was it particularly
was
a
As I
bank of
regard to particular
18
tests?
In
19
other
I
the
hlas
random
20
selection,
21
button,
22
Dr. Thomas went online he might have a different
23
set of questions from
24
same set of questions for the year?
25
whenever
words,
went online and hit the
I would get one set of questions, but if
~lR.
ABELE:
t~e
bank,
In
or was
looking
it the
over
the
\,
[&llH
51
1
material, but I have
not
2
study
refer
3
approximately 70 questions
4
up, but all 40 were given to all of the students
5
during that particular exam period.
you
guide
MS. POTUTO:
6
regard
to
seen
that particular
to,
of
Okay.
there
which
Then
were
40 showed
my question
7
with
the wording of the allegation,
8
then, is the
9
guide contained correct answers for the previous
last
"The
line.
amended study
10
exam of the online course,
11
the questions on the existing exams."
By
12
that,
did the study guide
14
all
15
have been on the spring
16
saying that
17
questions and all answers?
questions,
do you mean -- well,
then,
13
the
several of which were
contain all
and
the answers to
then 40 of them would
'06
exam,
or
are you
the study guide did not include all
Are you following my
18
19
questior.?
~IS.
THOMPSON:
I
thirck so.
20
asking whether or not the study
21
all the questions and all the answers.
22
MS. POTUTO:
23
70, then does the study
24
fewer than 70?
25
MS.
'You are
guide contained
That is right.
THOMPSON:
guide
have
If it was
all
Initially
70 or
in
the
~&llH
52
1
beginning it
did
not!
2
progress
it
did
contain all the questions and
3
all the answers.
4
MS. POTUTO:
but
Do
as
you
the
years did
know
whether by
5
the time
6
which I take
7
improper assistance
8
study guide have 70 questions and 70 answers?
it
is
the
first
time
that the
started to happen, did that
Yes,
MS. THOMPSON:
9
10
we are talking about, the fall of '06,
Ms.
Patuto l
it
did.
MS. POTUTO:
11
All right.
12
get down to several
13
really all of them that were on the test were in
14
the study
15
guide than were on the test.
16
17
guide,
Does
of them
Then when you
there
everybody
without making any
were on
were more
the test,
in the study
understand that again
decision
about
findings or
18
anything
else?
19
language
20
understand?
to
We
be
wi-,-l
MR. HARGROVE:
22
~IS.
one more,
24
start
25
year.
and that
is in
saying
during
out
But
I
thought
everybody
We understand it.
Okay.
POTU TO:
to amend this
Does
clear.
21
23
have
Then
(d), Page
I
have got
1-2.
You
the 2006-07 academic
the
summer
was
also
I.
I
53
involved,
2
that
were
there
at
some
athletes.
3
MS. THOMPSON:
December,
4
MS. POTUTO:
Yes
5
least
summer,
'07?
no.
Was the
'07 1 part of that?
Yes,
there were a few
6
MS. THOMPSON:
7
student-athletes in the beginning
8
of '07 that received impermissible assistance.
MS.
9
POTUTO:
10
the academic
year is
11
are
about
12
right?
talking
14
amend
15
'07.
that
16
17
I typically think that
fall and
the
MS. THOMPSON:
13
what
is
language
of the summer
entire
spring, but you
year;
Yes, I am.
to
And
is that
we can
include the summer of
NS. POTUTO:
I just wanted
alleged
what it is that everybody
is
to be sure
18
agrees that the facts
19
Thatls it.
20
are
going
to
point to.
I
I have got it cleared.
CHAIRc'lAN
THO~lAS:
Any other questions
I. 21
from
the
Committee?
22
Allegation 1.
23
MS.
24
make two corrections as
25
Summary
THOMPSON:
regarding
We
will
proceed
with
I would just like to
it relates
typographical
to the Case
errors,
if I
I
I
"
C&llH
54
,
I
~
may.
Under the individuals to
2
Page
No.
3
addition to the learning specialist she was also
4
the
5
Support Services.
6
that correction.
3,
under
be mentioned, on
Brenda
Monk's
name,
in
I
Assistant
Director
Then
7
Case
I
So,
on
for Athletics Academic
just
Page
to make
2-1 of the enforcement
the
Summary,
wanted
number
before the
B
staff's
9
bylaw citation should be "2" as opposed to "5".
11
I can't
12
already there.
flip
the
14
enforcement
staff's
15
before
bylaw
16
opposed to "5".
the
MS.
pages
as
THOMPSON:
~lS.
13
17
Please say that again.
MS. JENNINGS:
10
Case
citation
POTUTO:
On
fast
as
you are
Page
2-1 of the
Summary,
the number
should
!fIe have "2".
be
"211 as
~S.
18
JENNINGS:
We don't have any bylaw
19
citation.
The constitution is cited there.
20
where is there a bylaw citation?
MR. DIDION:
21
constitution.
You
are correct.
Before
you
see
22
the
23
Constitution 2.8.1, it is Allegation No.
24
should be corrected to Allegation No.2.
25
MS. JENNINGS:
I'
But
I t is
NCAA
5 that
Oh. Thanks.
I'
I \
C&llH
2
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
1
corrections?
~IS.
3
You may proceed.
I
THOMPSON:
parties present
have consulted with
4
all the
5
the permission of the Committee to
6
of
7
separately,
8
collectively.
the
today and I would like
subparagraphs
if
we
CHAI&~N
9
MS.
10
impermissible benefits
13
former learning
14
former academic tutor Adam
17
it
1
Monk
1
to
Overall,
violations
of
and unethical conduct by
specialist Dr.
relates
during the 2004-05 through
Dr.
opposed
Okay.
involves
12
16
No.
No.
Yes.
THOMPSON:
Allegation
As
as
may,
THOMAS:
address each
Allegation
in
11
15
Any other
Brenda Monk and
Wright.
to
Subparagraph (a),
the 2006-07 academic
provided improper editing and
18
typi~g
assistance on her
19
least
three
20
had learning disabilities.
21
Monk's
word
processor
to at
student-athletes whom she believed
actions
22
legislation
on
23
institutional
policy
which
24
accommodations
for
learning
25
athletes would
be provided
extra
violated
benefits
required
NCAA's and
an
that any
disabled student-
through the Student
L&11H
56
1
Disability Resource Center!
Regarding
2
known as the SORe.
Subparagraph
3
enforcement staff
4
agreement
5
notes that the number of occasions in which Monk
6
provided
7
unknown.
the
that
she
and
and
editing
disagrees
provided
that
was
the institution
assistance
the
improper.
Therefore,
12
provide improper typing
13
when
14
student-athletes' rough drafts, develop outlines
15
for
16
their thoughts within their papers?
the
Committee
Subparagraph (a).
and
word
student-athletes'
Regarding
this
assistance
consider concerning
her
for
is
11
used
issue
are in
there
she
one
institution
10
17
is
the
facts,
typing
Monk
8
9
on
and
the
(a) ,
this
to
Did Monk
editing assistance
processor
papers,
issue,
to
type
and edited
although
the
18
enforcement
19
student-athletes
20
papers
21
could
22
athletes involved
23
four points to support its position.
only
is
the
which
greater
readily
Committee's
that the number of
believes
,lonk
typed
than
and edited
three, the staff
three
identify
student-
in this matter! and relies on
Point number
24
25
for
staff
one:
attention
The
to
staff directs
Florida State's
57
located
is
in
1
institutional
policy
which
2
Attachment
of
enforcement staff's Case
3
Summary, and Institution's Exhibit No. 1-16.
A
5
State's
policy
6
student
seeks
7
learning
8
themselves, be
9
to
is
indisputable
accommodations
11
staff.
be
his
or her
identify
approved by SDRe
accommodations,
must
Florida
that if a
must
registered and
receive
accommodations
in
for
they
disability,
10
that
believes
staff
The
4
the
arranged
the
and
by
the SDRe
Further! Dr. Bea At'lOniyi, the director
12
13
of the SDRe, is
14
is
not
an
extremely clear
accommodation
learning disabilities,
and
for
that
in that typing
students
Monk
with
was not
16
given permission from anyone from the SORe staff
17
to
provide
accommodations
or
services
to
18
students with learning or medical disabilities.
Moreover, if a student with a learning
19
20
disability qualifies for a
21
suggested in
this case,
22
only
on
23
should
24
accommodation.
25
entity have
Point
Florida
provided
scribe, as
Monk has
then again SORe is the
State's and
campus
approved
such
that an
I number
two:
Three
student-
58
1
athletes involved
2
Monk
3
Specifically,
4
May
typed
30,
and
matter reported that
and
with
his
the
August
institl:tion that Nonk typed
7
because he
8
recall
9
papers Ner2 typed.
or
2008,
for him
But he could not
courses
11
5th, 2007,
12
help him type his papers
13
during the
14
some changes within his papers.
for
interview that
which the
sometimes fIon.k would
2006-07 academic
ye~r,
and inserted
Finally,
15
~O
durir_g his lvlay 3rd,
17
helped
~
his
reported during his June
10
,
21st,
two papers
was a slow typist.
course
d~ring
enforcement staff and the
6
the
papers.
their
edited
reported
2007,
interviews
in this
type
and
reported
2007,
reword
interview
that Monk
some of his papers so
se~se.rr
that they w8uld "make better
19
further
20
writing ~ssignments,
21
FaP.',ily and Re=..ationship classes.
22
Point number
23
duri~g
reported
;Y!onk
helped him in h:'s
in his English, Theater and
three: Nonk acknowledged
her November 7, 2007, interview
enforcement stafE
25
that
and the
typed student-athletes'
with the
ir.stitution that she
handwritten
drafts and
S9
1
typed outlines
for student-athletes on her word
2
processor,
3
sometimes
4
actual papers which Monk considered permissible.
and
be
that
mew~ers
institutional staff
7
Schmauch
reported
8
athletes
typing
9
institutional staff member Kylie
was
seeing
a
asked
Lord and Brian
Amy
Monk
with
student-
paper,
and
current
Amato reported
10
that
11
year at the institution
12
student-athlete.
13
by their direct supervisor, Mark Meleney.
15
staff believes
16
benefits when she
17
type
three
by Monk during her intern
to type
a paper
for a
These concerns were addressed
eor the
14
would
Former
four:
number
6
she
strokes
included in the student-athletes'
Point
5
key
her
above-mentioned
reasons, the
that Monk provided impermissible
used
her
word
student-athletes
r
processor to
rough
drafts
I
developed
19
outlines
for
the
student-athletes'
papers, and edited their thoughts.
20
The
enforcement
21
Subparagraph (a) should
be
22
And this
staff's presentation of
23
Subparagraph (a).
concludes the
24
CHAI~~N
25
Mr. Smrt.
THOMAS:
staff
found
Okay.
believes that
as reported.
60
1
~IR.
S~lRT:
2
it is an extra benefit.
3
MR.
4
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
5
MR. PARK:
Thank
PARK:
you.
We agree that
May I ask a question?
Yes, Judge Park.
I am confused, which is not
6
infrequent.
I would
like to
7
at the
8
bullet on
9
editing and typing portions of papers.
very beginning.
1-4 of
clarify something
Looking
the Case
Summary talks about
10
drop down into later bullets and
11
typing papers.
12
Now,
first
Dr.
it talks about
question
actually
is
the
typed
an
allegation
14
entire paper up for any of the student-athletes,
15
or is it that she may have typed portions of the
16
paper?
MS. THOMPSON:
Monk
Then you
13
17
that
my
at your first
It is my understanding
student-athletes 1
the
from
19
interviews that she typed portions of papers for
20
some, and that for
21
papers.
22
lister.ing
to
18
MR.
others she
PARK:
Could
typed the entire
you identify what
23
papers, what complete papers she typed r
24
and when, and what course?
25
MS.
THOMPSON:
Out
of
for whom
the
three
I'
~&llH
student-athletes, tte
o~ly
2
ident':"fy
that
3
been,
believe
4
individual
5
2006-2007 academic year.
I
7
papers,
that we cou:d
typed papers for would have
is
it
the
during the
HR.
6
she
person
that
So,
PARK:
as
far
as
entire
goes to
8
HS.
9
10
unclear
11
whether or not
12
language
13
papers.
14
from
THOMPSON:
the
other
it
was
that
MR.
PARK:
was
having trouble
16
it is jcst trying
17
contends.
two
was
The
to
That has
and
is
papers.
portions
next
just
Their
of their
question
I am
this isn't criticism,
~nderstand
to do
It
student-athletes
entire
it
wit~,
15
Yes.
what the staff
with the concept of
18
editing.
1/Jhat is editing?
19
We have got a center
So, was it improper
20
that is supposed to assist.
21
for Dr.
22
these student-athletes had prepared?
~onk
MS.
23
to
look at
drafts of
THOMPSON:
24
that editing and
25
different
Mr.
proofreading
separate
things
papers that
Park, I believe
are
two totally
within the revision
62
1
process of the
2
permissible
3
athlete's paper?
4
that it
5
I
Do
paper.
for
her
to
I
believe
proofread
But
Certainly.
it was
a student-
do I believe
was improper for her to edit the paper?
do.
MR. PARK:
6
Does that
7
mean?
8
clear,
9
you mean
By
what
include criticism,
this is clear,
or what
actually rewriting it?
10
get the flavor of this,
11
proper and
12
Smrt talked about as
13
moving a line.
do you
this isn't
is editing?
Do
I am trying to
if I can, as to
what is
what is not proper to cover what Mr.
MS.
14
editing,
very
THOMPSON:
difficult,
As
in my opinion, when you
it
or maybe
relates
to
15
editing,
are looking at
16
a paper and determining whether or not the paper
17
meets the actual requirements of the assignment,
18
when you are looking to determine whether or not
19
the content ~s actually
20
the
21
smoothly, whether
22
whether
23
there is an introductory
24
conclusion statement.
25
I
transitions
or
not
think
there,
and
or
there
in
paragraphs
the
not
you
is
whether
flow
are determining
a thesis statement,
statement,
my
or not
there
is a
opinion that that is
63
When you
editing a paper.
you
are
2
think
3
looking at grammatical and typographical errors,
4
not when
5
have, in fact, met
6
paper.
reviewing the paper and
you are determining whether or not you
MS.
7
simply
are proofreading, I
all the
requirements of the
Can
POTUTO:
I just follow up?
8
What do you contend that she did with
9
editing?
us
Did
say,
she say to the student-athlete,
10
let
11
sentence that
12
write the topic sentence?
MS.
13
regard to
there
is
no,
you
know,
topic
start-s this paragraph, or did she
From
THOMPSON:
statements,
they
the
student-
14
athletes'
15
"made sure that the
16
When we asked Dr. Monk what did she actually do,
17
she informed the staff and the
paper
indicated that she
made
better sense."
institution that
',-trite
'rJould
outlines
18
she
19
athletes for the paper.
for
the
student-
She would type handwritten drafts that
20
student-athletes
If
the
21
the
22
students did not have
23
the paper
met, she would -- I don't know if she
24
used
exact
25
statements.
the
provided
her.
all
requirements of
words,
the
reword
some
of
the
But she made sure that the student-
64
1
athletes' papers made sense.
MS. POTUTO:
2
Did you ask
what it
the students
3
in particular
4
said IImade the papers make better sense"?
6
of the
7
deflect this back
8
they
9
student-athletes.
11
I
MS. THOMPSON:
5
10
was they meant when they
I will
interview.
did
the
to
the
bulk
listened to several
say, and
I have to
institution, because
of the interviews with the
So, I would like
for them to
answer those questions.
MR. SMRT:
This allegation has evolved
over the past few
13
talked about the initial interviews with the 30-
14
some athletes.
15
Monk advised.
16
So,
17
months.
President Wetherell
12
Those
the
were
auditors
athletes
that Dr.
went
with the
thought of, "as there anybody else
in
who got help
18
as
19
went in with
20
l':'ne.
did in l-(b).
":1d
that
approach
During those
21
or
that
So, they
i~terview
initial interviews, five
22
athletes said Dr. Monk typed papers for her.
23
coming
24
iolere five athletes that said typed papers.
25
~"e
Qut
of
the
So
auditor's interview, there
When
got inv01 ved , we said let I s make sure none of
1
them have restoration issues, so we went back to
2
the five,
3
interviewed all five, and four of
4
and said no, she really didn't type
or Bob
Minn£x went back to the five,
One athlete,
6
typed papers.
So,
7
Monk's
8
interview, she said no,
9
What she
interview
go
with
November.
I
that
St'_2
into Dr.
And during her
didn't
type papers.
did say was that I would sit down with
10
them and they would give me
11
would type up tr.eir tr.oughts.
12
It would
their thoughts.
be an outline or a theme.
13
was tte one that specifically asked
14
of this
15
yes, I believe -- well, she said I
i6
to thef!l then.
17
pape~s.
, said yes,
we
in
them came off
ever get
I gave
into a
them a
paper?
I
I
her did any
And she said
gave it back
disk or hOt'iever I give
I
said did
any of
18
it back to then.
19
get into a paper?
20
on occasion that probably did."
21
on, we
22
a whole paper or
23
think
24
Services can
25
paper
And she said,
that ever
"Yes, I believe
From that point
didn't care if it was an issue of typing
that
a
a
piece
person
type
regardless
of
we don't
involved in the Academic
anything
of
paper,
a
that
gets
into a
learning disability, a
66
1
learni~g
2
from
3
acknowledged an extra benefit violation.
strategy, or a learning diagnosis.
that
4
point
on
we
thought
she
So,
has
Now, Joyce continued on, and continued
5
on with typing papers.
6
of the four who denied it fClr a third ir:.terviefo"J,
7
and
8
they still
9
was one
said
~vho
So,
we went back to some
-- well, for the most part,
no,
she
didn't
type papers.
said no.
10
After
being
confronted
11
auditor' s
12
So, ';-lhere
13
athlete,
14
paper.
15
what we are basing our position on.
intervie~v,
this
he said yes, maybe she did.
we are sitting here today we have one
who
~1je
16
17
with
have
she
did
type a
her Dvm testimony, and that is
lhe extra
during the
said
benefit
interview there
is
that
she said
were occasions from
18
what I typed,
that
19
if
20
athlete's paper for us,
will,
you
information, her keystrokes,
somehow
got
into
difference
22
make
23
strategies or whatever.
24
it an
25
don't have to get
any
editing issue?
student-
that's it.
That is an extra benefit.
21
a
about
doing
It doesn't
disability
It is a violation.
I don't know.
to the
editing.
To us,
Is
you
If she did
I'
I
C&llH
67
something that got into a paper,
MR.
2
am curious about this
I
PARK:
3
editing problem.
4
for Dr.
5
maybe had a draft of a paper?
6
as a part of her function?
Monk to
What
was it
do when
Could she
7
that's enough.
that was proper
a student came in and
What could she do
make suggestions
8
substance of the paper,
9
expressed?
as
to
the
as to the
way
Where is the line?
I
think the line -- well,
10
MR. SMRT:
11
if an athlete comes
12
the
13
athlete's thoughts.
14
athlete's thoughts
and give
15
her.
vlork
16
that's where the issue came up for us.
17
it \"'as
athlete,
in,
obviously,
But once her
MR. PARK:
She
So,
she
can sit
and
go
could
goes
down with
through
write
it back
into
the
down the
to him or
the paper,
you are saying if she
18
had written these notes on
19
paper,
20
athlete had put that
21
the paper,
you
know,
a
pad
pen,
in those
with
and
j~st
a
then the
exact words into
that wouldn't be a violation.
But
22
with
a
the
fact
that
she somewhere or
23
another ~ad perhaps for clarity sake,
24
else,
25
that becomes the extra benefit?
if nothing
typed it up, and then he used those words,
I'
I
I
~
I
68
2
If
MR. SMRT:
1
it
is
the athlete's
words! yes.
MS.
3
If it is the athlete's
POTUTO:
is that
right?
Is that
4
words and her typing,
5
your distinction, that if she is typing and then
6
it is the athlete's words, and
7
retypes,
8
that right?
9
are, no extra benefit?
there
would
be
then the athlete
no extra benefit; is
I just want to understand where you
10
~lR.
11
MS. POTUTO:
12
MR. PARK:
SMRT:
That is correct.
Do you want to go ahead?
I am almost through.
I am
13
looking at Exhibit 1-7 of the institution.
I am
14
sorry, 1-8, which is a draft which I assume that
15
Dr. Monk prepared.
16
of
l7
about two-thirds of the
that
draft,
When you turn over to Page 6
at
the
bottom it has 45, and
way down
the paper "if
:'8
there is difficulty writing", and then there are
19
about five bullets.
It
20
talks
about
21
proofreading, acting
22
be acceptable activities?
NR. SMRT:
23
as a
use
of
scribe.
computers,
Would those
Generally speaking, no.
24
guess it
depends on
25
by those
words.
I
what specifically is meant
But I
think I
will let Mark
II
69
Meleney address that because this is obviously a
2
draft document that Dr. Monk developed.
3
let Mark address that.
And then if somebody could
MR. PARK:
4
, will
you
what is
in answering that
6
this
7
other than it was
8
mean, was
9
the higher-ups, either accepted or not accepted?
piece
10
But at
11
the time.
of
amplify,
know,
5
a draft
this something
least it
some years
Okay.
I
would like to
address that, if I could.
14
on her interview with
15
was
16
students with learning disabilities.
17
develop
I
that was turned in to
13
to
back?
shows what her thinking was at
MR. MELENEY:
12
what does it stand forI
paper,
When Dr. Monk came in
Florida
services
State,
our goal
to meet the needs of
She presented a model
for
me
in our
~ook
18
program to
19
of her thoughts because
20
after
21
hire.
22
development
23
submit
24
ac knO'N ledgemen t .
25
Brenda
her
hire,
And
to
at.
the
this
within
this
of
This draft was an extension
a
was
was
the first year of her
the
beginning
programming
institution
and
I
just shortly
for
walked
that
of
we
approval
through
her
would
and
this
I'
[&llH
70
1
draft, we
2
the
3
SDRe.
4
appropriate or inappropriate at the direction of
5
the SORe.
talked about
draft.
It
6
Nuch
different issues within
of this was dictated by the
was
determined
So, my
direction
to
to
be
Brenda
either
at that
7
time was
8
with the director of
9
the institutionls position is on these services,
10
and we will continue to clearly define a program
11
and establish a program in place.
12
as we
continue to
This draft
the
develop this,
SORe,
talk
determine what
never surfaced any further
13
than
14
institution and
15
of her personnel file.
16
in the file as our discussions to this process.
17
that.
So,
I
presented
to the
the
this
draft
to the
NCAA, just directly out
This
efforts
was a
of
draft I had
this draft were
instituti.on
or
18
never
19
determined
20
accommodations or non-acceptable
21
She continued
22
different versions of the efforts were continued
23
to be defined.
24
25
acknowledged
to
MR.
by
the
be
either
acceptable
at
that time.
to discuss this with the SORe and
PARK:
that is Dr. Monk,
Was she ever instructed,
that she
couldn't perforQ any
::&llH
71
of those activities that are described?
2
MR.
~lELENEY:
sir.
Yes,
3
numerous discussions related
4
of
5
appropriate accommodation.
6
clarification
7
received some communication ·on that.
a
scribe,
8
9
and
from
And shortly
would have
to
whether
the definition
a
We
compliance
We did have
scribe
asked
is
an
for some
as well, and we
after this,
I believe it
been probably in '02, a decision was
10
made that
11
institutional policy unless approved by the SDRC
12
Office.
l3
we could
MR. SMRT:
not provide
There
was
a scribe under
also
a policy
14
that Mark implemented at some point that a tutor
15
or mentor could
16
athlete.
17
general restriction also.
So,
not
be
at
a
screen
with an
this would have fallen under that
18
CHAI&~N
19
MS. MYERS:
THO,ffiS:
Just
20
~r.
21
presentation r if Dr. Monk
22
in the SORe,
23
been within the rules?
24
MR. MELENEY:
25
to
Meleney
determine
Andrea Myers.
I'
one quick question.
or else Ms. Thompson! based on your
had been
an employee
then would these same services have
that
on
I believe you would have
an individual basis for
I..
I
72
1
each student, because the
2
each
3
services or maybe not.
student
4
provides
So, each
would have
6
would say yes,
7
but, no, this one is not.
9
to be
reviewed and
these
types
of
student's case
the SORe Office
this accommodation is appropriate
MR. SMRT:
with the SORe to
this
them
individual's
5
8
disability defined by
You
receive
it.
At
this time,
10
during
11
were several athletes with what were believed to
12
be disabilities.
13
time
have to be registered
However,
period, unfortunately, there
there
were
few
diagnoses
14
through SORe, if you registered with SORe.
15
everyone
16
diagnosis.
17
is
registered
NS. MYERS:
Now,
with SDRe who has this
One quick follow-up.
So,
18
now a student-athlete registered with SDRe could
19
receive this same service and it would not
20
violation?
21
MR.
ABELE:
There
is
be a
a three-step
22
process to registering with SORe.
23
the student
24
and which test they
25
by which the disability was determined.
The first is
voluntarily comes in with documents
have taken
and the process
\I
C&lIH 73
1
Those documents are submitted to SDRC.
2
There is then an interview with
3
the student to determine what accommodations are
4
appropriate, and then
5
the
6
agreed to participate with SORC in this process.
faculty
7
8
completed
9
accommodation
finally
member
And it is
SORe staff, and
signs
a
only,
those
that
student and
letter that they
bnce
three
certified
the
a
student has
steps
and
the
the
student
is
10
eligible for them, but they must be taken in the
11
SDRC Center.
12
MS.
MYERS:
was
yes.
So,
the
answer
to my
13
question
14
athlete is currently enrolled in the SDRC and an
If
the
current student-
employee in the SORe provided these services, it
16
would have
17
NCAA.
been legal
within the
rules of the
MR.
18
ABELE:
Only
if
during
the
19
evaluation and interview process they determined
20
that those services were appropriate.
21
very rare in SDRC.
MS. POTUTO:
22
23
a moment?
24
that right?
25
Typing is
Can I clarify it just for
It would have to be in the centeri is
MR. ABELE:
That is correct.
I, .
\I
[&llH
74
1
CHAI~~N
2
Judge Lechner.
3
MS. KARPINSKI:
THOMAS:
Okay.
Can I
just clarify the
4
SORC policy on scribes?
A scribe, as defined by
5
SORC at
Florida
University
6
that is
certified by SORe to serve as a scribe,
7
and that would
8
would be allowable in a testing situation.
State
only
be
an
is somebody
accommodation that
1-
9
SORC
does
not
permit
scribes to do
10
papers or work on assignments with
11
Typing services is different from a scribe.
12
scribe
13
situation, not
14
and that sort of thing.
is
an
accommodation
CHAI~'ffiN
16
MR. LECHNER:
17
something a
in
to work on papers,
15
THOMAS:
I
the student.
a
The
testing
seeing papers
Judge Lechner.
would like
to get to
little bit basic, and maybe ask the
18
University,
19
me know.
20
State and my professor says the paper has
21
typed, that
22
correct?
and
If
t~en
I am
if the staff
taking a
MR. ABELE:
24
MR. LECHNER:
yes or no.
course at Florida
to be
is my obligation to type the paper,
23
25
disagrees let
(Nods head.)
You will have to respond
[&l:'H 75
1
~1R.
2
t-1R. LECHNER:
ABELE:
That is correct.
So,
if I can't type, I
3
have to pay somebody to type it or
4
else who
5
for me,
will be a friend of mine to type it up
correct?
6
MR. ABELE:
7
MR. LECHNER:
canlt type,
That would be correct.
So,
and I
9
somebody in either the academic or
10
Department types
11
about
12
handwritten it,
13
is that correct?
editing
and I
. if I
8
it,
just
15
MR. LECHNER:
the
the Academic
for me, and forget
types
it
as
I have
I have gotten an extra benefit;
MR. ABELE:
of
am an athlete
am in this course and
that paper
14
one
get somebody
Yes.
Now,
if that same person
16
in
Florida State departments, not
17
only types it but comes back and says,
"Lechner,
18
T
think
you have got to add this in, this isn't
19
correct.
20
it."
Reword this.
Let
22
of it,
23
unethical; is that correct?
25
you reword
As he or she is typing it changes some
21
24
me help
that is adding to
MR. ABELE:
of the honor code.
my paper,
and that is
That would be a violation
76
MR. LECHNER:
1
2
It
correct?
3
NR. ABELE:
4
MR. LECHNER:
Correct.
So, if I had that done,
5
I
6
and an ethics violation?
could have two
violations,
7
NR. ABELE:
8
MR. LECHNER:
9
an
extra benefit
Yes.
Thank you.
Does anybody
disagree with it on the staff?
10
11
would be unethical,
MR. DIDION:
No,
sir,
agree with
we
that.
12
MS.
JENNINGS:
I
have
a
little
13
question about
14
reading your
material you have a Writing Center
15
that does do
exactly
16
described,
17
University can go to the Writing Center and that
that,
and
because
that
what
any
I understood from
Judge
Lechner just
student
in
the
18
Writi~g
Center
19
say you
don't have
20
don't
21
rewriting it
22
the things
23
correct?
24
25
have
a
will
work with the student and
a topic
thesis.
this way,
that he
MR. ABELE:
sentence here; you
Have you thought about
et cetera,
and many of
just described; is that not
That is correct.
What the
Writing Center's staff are permitted to do is to
77
tell the student the paper doesn't have a theme,
there is no transition sentences, it needs a lot 3
of work.
You need to go back and work orr it.
4
They are not allowed to type the paper
5
or to
6
give them.
put naterial
in that the student doesn't
7
CHAI~ffiN
8
Mr. Smrt, would
9
THOMAS:
Any other questions?
the
to respond?
10
MR.
SMRT:
No,
I
11
reinforce the current policy
12
be at
13
the
14
registered with SDRe now.
a screen
athletes
15
1-JR.
player,
17
institution like
have done?
just is that
do want to you can't
with a student-athlete, and all
who
PARK:
have
been
diagnosed
are
What should the football
what What should have happened?
should he
18
19
20
HR. SHRT:
He should have gone to SORC
and tried to get a temporary accommodation.
~lS
.
POTUTO :
SORC
is
not
simply
21
learning disabilities, it is any disability that
22
they handle?
23
MR.
ABELE:
24
disability,
physical
25
learning disabilities.
They
disabilities,
handle
any
as well as
--11"
'--&-,-~r!
78
1
2
CHA::-:R.\]AN THOMAS:
Any
other questior.s
or comments?
3
NS. KARPINSKI:
4
if
somebody
The question about the
came
to
SORe
the SORe
or a handicap of SOQe sort,
6
would not type his paper.
7
to accommodate
8
him to type, whetter
9
computer or
10
They would
with a
find ways
and other ways for
sorneth~ng
it is
read orally
like that.
into a
They would not
simply take the draft and type it.
11
C~AIfuv~N
12
in terms
13
for 1- (a)?
THOMAS:
Mr. Srnrt, is this it
of the institution's opening statement
14
MR. SYlRT:
15
CHAlfu'1AN THONAS:
16
Dr. Monk.
17
t'IR.
I think you have heard it.
HARGROVE:
Okay.
If
18
briefly to one issue, Mr. Chairman.
19
CHAIR"IAN T HOt-Ln.S :
20
Dr.
21
MS. MONK:
22
CHAIRHAN
23
MR. HARGROVE:
24
Mr. Smrt, the intervievl
25
that I
~onk,
Go ahead.
are you in agreement?
Yes,
that's
THO~lAS:
f~~e.
Okay ..
vlith all due respect to
of
, vias one
would have dearly loved to have been at.
79
was nowhere near to be kir.d
stateme~t
2
as defiGitive as what Nr. Smrt has relayed.
3
Mr.
4
Smrt
was,
said she. didn't
in
fact,
type anything,
there.
and he was
5
confronted with essentially a question that was,
6
well,
7
whenever.
that disagrees with what you
8
9
he
IIOh,'1
said back in
said, "well, whatever I said
then is what I said."
The two statements in the
10
two
not inconsistent with one
11
another.
12
whom Dr.
13
learning disability.
interviews
14
were
is one
Nonk worked
And
interjecting that.
16
everything else.
,1
,
-,
know that,
who did,
that,
'dith
1:>
of the
I
students with
in fact, have a
apologize
for
You are free to ask Ms. Nonk
But I wanted
that this
the Committee to
is one of the issues from
18
our perspective that 'de had to deal '..JiLh becaJ..;.se
19
'lie were not there.
20
have pinned that down a little better.
21
iYlS.
POTUTO:
22
you.
23
The
24
sounded to
25
You are saying in
You know,
second
I would have dearly loved to
I am not
sure I
follm-;ed
we do Qot have the statements.
statement,
me exactly
as
you
described
it,
like what Nr. Smrt said.
the first
statement that
ao gav~
2
3
YIR.
HARGROVE:
MS.
fie
POTUTO:
In
the first interview,
!,Jhat di.d he say?
6
~lR.
HARGROVE:
7
he said
8
type services,
9
second interview he
10
That is correct.
was confrorrted in the second interview
4
5
he did not say she typed for me?
papers
essentially that
for
In the first
she provided editing-
tutorial services
me.
said
intervie~
she
for him.
didn't
The
type any
Those two statements are not
inconsistent.
c2 13
But he was confronted
indicating to
him that
So, what
they were inconsistent.
said was,
15
said in
16
was correct as was the second.
17
the first
other
with a question
"Well, whatever I
interview was
~1ords
,
it
correct."
wasn't
It
the
18
SiCUB::-=-on
~9
said between
20
be consisteat but was confronted
21
that
22
inconsistent.
23
they were inconsiste:1t,
24
words that they were inconsistent.
25
told
wheLe
!:2canted vJf:at [:2
i~terviews.
him,
wait
Those
a
minute,
were
a question
those
are
not r..is words that
those
CHArm'IAN THON}\S:
w~th
W2Le
Dr. Monk.
Mr. Smrt's
81
1
MS.
you
Ttank
MONK:
for
tte
2
opportunity to speak.
3
say that
4
"hen I was brought
5
University
6
interview process, part of the interview process
7
included
people
8
employed
at
9
individuals "ho were employed with SDRC.
10
when I
in
It
First of
was hired
on
2001,
who
our
was
I
want to
at Florida State or
board
and
all,
at
I
Florida State
went
through the
were individuals who were
Testing
very
on
campus,
much a statement to me,
11
and I took the
12
what
13
could do
14
student-athletes who didn't always meet the time
15
lines that SDRC had.
was
at
to
the
with
the
in
operation.
belief that
do was to complement what SDRC
university
with
SDRC had certain hours
16
17
I
position
Center
They
a
group of
that they were
were limited in the fact
II 18
that they had no
19
with learning
20
that were available
21
were volunteers to SORe, not paid specialists in
22
the areas of students with learning disabilities
23
and other disabilities.
24
Not
25
tutors
available
disabilities.
all
at
SDRe
All of the tutors
were
student-athletes
learning disabilities.
Many
to students
of them
tutors that
just
had
had -- we
32
worked
with
stud2~t-ath:etes
2
impairmer:.ts.
3
who
4
teraporary
5
spoken of about
had
6
We
ir:1pairments
physical
So,
~-Jith
worked
visual
I
that had hearing
student-athletes
as
well
as
the
disabilities
that
we
ha~le
on board
2ame
w~th
tr.e belief
7
that my job responsibility was to complement the
8
services that
9
and to be able to provide
'ile!:"e already or. campus witr. SORC,
10
24
11
stude~t-athletes
hours
12
a
day,
or
those services really
at the availability when
needed those services.
I tad the same
qualifications, if not
13
higher qualifications, than the ~ndividuals that
14
served in SDRe.
Those were
15
were advertised
for, were qualifications that I
LQ
, r
was
l7
provide
if'.tervie~Jed
the
~vith
support
and
qualifications that
asked
if
I
could
services to students with
18
disabilities.
19
And
~
I did so with rigor, and
20
a
21
anyone in this room,
22
those
23
question.
level
six
of
I
never
~
did so with
professionalism that I don't think
and
a
if you
had
any
saw me
~'/ork
during
half years, would be able to
I never typed a
24
25
did so.
paper for
a student.
intent of typing a paper for
::&llH
83
1
students.
2
writing
3
question as to they supposedly had
4
or maybe they might have had a disability.
I
did
work
with
disabilities.
5
I
came
into
students
There
the
was
position
qualifications to know that they had
7
disability.
8
agree to
9
locked
this,
my
in
my
office,
file
it
with the
a learning
cabinet
that was
had every student's
paperwork in there that
11
specific learning disability.
diagnosed
them
with a
A student with a writing disability is
13
going to
14
their thoughts
15
the NCAA and how
16
how I could work with those students.
17
a
In my file cabinet, Nr. Neleney can
10
12
never
a disability
6
in
who had
have
I
did
a
very
difficult
on paper.
the NCAA
struggle.
I
time getting
did struggle with
and the institution,
I did seek counsel
18
from
19
Compliance
20
this student?
21
they write
22
going to be able to accommodate them?
23
I do?"
24 25
~lr.
Meleney.
I did
seek counsel
"How
Department.
They
have a
can I work with
writing disability,
at the second grade level.
So, the
only thing
was what I knew from my
from the
I had
How am I
What can
to rely on
educational background.
I'
:::&llH
84
1
What
I
knew
2
afforded to them by their high
3
that carne in their IEPs, in their folders.
4
from the accommodations that were
What
was
school programs,
prescribed
to
them
as an
5
accommodation by clinical psychologists that had
6
performed
7
them, and had given
8
order to be successful.
9
evaluations
psycho-educational
I also
them
what
they
they needed, what their parents said.
11
to their
12
Ii fe \vhere
13
Athletic
14
professional
15
learning
16
disabilities.
17
So,
I was
Academic
to
I talked
and so I was at a place in my
the onl y
one who
was in the
Support
Program
who
working
disabilities
I
needed in
relied on them, what they said
10
parents,
on
relied
with
was a
students
and
with
I
didn't
with
other
have
a
18
document.
19
University produced for me
20
you can and cannot do.
21
published by ]\Jr. ]\Jeleney to say that I
22
could not do this as part of that.
~<Jas
There
23
And
24
about many of
25
talked about.
I
Many
saying this
is what
There was not a document
worked
the
not a document that the
with
changes
SDRC.
that
of those
]\Jr.
could or
I brought
Smrt has
changes became a
[&llH 85
1
part of what my goal was,
2
I brought SDRe in our building.
3
We set
was to work with SDRC.
up office hours for them to be
4
able to meet with
5
to
6
services.
7
graduate student that could kind of be a liaison
8
between SDRe and the Athletic Department.
9
At all times throughout the six
assign
student-athletes, to
reluctant
I
worked
be able
student-athletes
with
getting
up
for
an academic
and a
10
half
11
believed that it was my job and my position that
12
I was
13
was to provide the supplemental studies, provide
14
supplemental
15
SDRC,
16
but realizing
17
meet the needs of the student-athletes.
years
that
hired for
never
I
worked
there,
I
always
and had the qualifications for
services
intended to
that SDRe
that
would
take the
complement
place of it,
could not at that time
18
Therefore,
the
University
19
requested
20
that could provide those services.
21
will say
22
very
23
disabilities.
24
25
and
I never
closely
If you
friends
sought
that
had
and found a professional
But again,
I
typed a paper, but I did work
with
students
with
writing
know someone in your family or
have
a
writing
disability,
I' [I
[I
Ii
'-=&llH 86
1
diagnosed with
2
very much understand why L may have used some of
3
the tactics that I did.
that disability,
you will never
I' I 4
['
CHAI~~N
THOMAS:
Thank you, Dr. Monk.
5
We are going
6
Committee, and then we will break and come back.
to
take
two
7
Judge Lechner.
8
MR.
9
LECHNER:
work with
a student
10
who
decided
11
within the
12
purview·?
questions
Doctor,
who was
from the
did you ever
rejected by SORC,
,,
13
SORC
didn't
need
qualifications to
MS. MONK:
I
or
come within their
worked in
my six and a
14
half
15
student-athletes, so to say that --
years,
I
probably
16
MR. LECHNER:
17
MS. MONK:
Oh?
didn't fit
went
through
Excuse me, Doctor.
1,200
~IR.
18
Listen to the question.
LECHNER:
19
I didn't ask how many people you worked with.
20
just
21
provide services to a
22
by
23
within our profile, does
24
services?
want
to
know
l
during your period did you
studer.t who
~.,as
rejected ,.1
25
SORe,
or
one
MS. MONK:
that
SORe said does not fit
not
qualify
for SORe
No.
1/
[&llH
87
I I
1
MR. LECHNER:
2
MS. MONK:
3
MR. LECHNER:
4
CHAlfu~N
5
MS. POTUTO:
T
am sorry?
No.
i
6
are not a licensed
7
the
8
right?
learning
THOMAS:
10
As
Professor Potuto.
I understand it, you
professional who
disability
MS. MONK:
9
That is all I have.
MS. POTUTO:
could make
diagnosis;
is
that
That is incorrect.
So, you are licensed, and
hire you if I had a child and you could
11
I could
12
do the diagnostic determining
13
learning disability
14
our
15
licensed
16
credentials permit her to make this diagnosis?
17
center
at
that I
Nebraska
professional
MS. MONK:
that there
was a
could then bring to
and
say
whose
this
is
a
professional
I did that for 20
years in
18
the State
19
Florida, but I
20
Mississippi
21
provided those services for 20 years.
as
licensed
a
MS. POTUTO:
school
in
the
State of
psychologist
and
Not the services, but the
I'
diagnosis.
24
25
was
I am not licensed in
II
22
23
of Mississippi.
MS. MONK:
of
Mississippi,
I
For 20 years, in the State
was
a
licensed
school
[i
I
'I ,
I
I.
C&llH
88
I
a licensed school
psychologist.
2
psychologist in the State of Mississippi and can
3
provide those diagnostic services.
I
4
did
am
still
1
not
that
seek
license
in
5
Florida, because the services were already there
6
in SORC and at the Testing Center, and I did not
7
seek that license to
8
still
9
Nississippi.
a
MS. POTUTO:
10
11
hire
12
right?
13
14
licensed
you
as
cover Florida.
But
I
psychologist
school
am
in
And the University didn't
a licensed diagnostician; is that
MS. MONK:
That
is
correct,
and I
never served in that role.
15
MS. POTUTO:
Okay.
So,
can you say
16
that every student-athlete with
17
had a disability that was processed through SORC
whom you worked
18
MR. i:-1ELENEY:
19
MS. POTUTO:
Yes,
ma'am.
Were those diagnoses ones
20
that identified a learning disability particular
21
to writing?
22
MR. MELENEY:
23
all those documents t
so
24
documents for
25
between Dr. Monk and the
I did not have access to
I did
every student.
SORe
not review those
That decision was
Office.
So,
I
I'
I
'
)
II
I
89
1
2
~lS.
They
were
MS. POTUTO:
I don't care
about that.
Oid they go through SORC and get certification?
5
MS. MONK:
That was not a policy that
6
they had to get certification.
7
MS. POTUTO:
8
MS. MONK:
9
certified as
having a learning disability when they came.
3
4
MONK:
Are you answering no?
If you are
asking if every
student went through SORe, the answer is no.
10
MS. POTUTO:
With
regard
12
worked,
13
SORC,
14
performed
15
were using?
did
that
to
The answer is no.
the
you
students
have
had been
within
MS. MONK:
17
MS. POTUTO:
whom
you
document, other than
a diagnosis
the
16
a
with
Okay.
that had been
prior two years that you
Yes,
I did.
Every single one?
18
MS. MONK:
19
MS. POTUTO:
Yes.
You
said you
20
that if Mr. Meleney found those,
21
been in the file?
22
MS. MONK:
23
MS.
24
true?
25
She
had files,
they would have
Yes.
is that
I
Did you find documents on every student?
i
said
she
POTUTO:
worked
Mr.
with
Meleney,
1,200,
with 1,200
:::&llH
90
who
had
learning
documented
1
students
2
disabilities where the diagnosis would have been
3
in the prior two years.
MR. MELENEY:
4
When
she was referring
5
to 1,200
6
1,200 disabled
7
other students, outside
8
well.
9
students that she worked with as far as
:0
students,
We
did
not
referring to
Dr. Monk worked with
students.
MS.
of
other
students, as
have documentation in-house on
POTUTO:
12
show there
13
for each of those?
14
was a
I know.
Did
the documentation
diagnosed learning disability
MR. MELENEY:
As
far as I understand
it.
MS.
16
17
was
I do not know of any individual students.
11
15
she
two years?
POTUTO:
Done
with
in
the prior
I'
I 18
MR.
i:
MS. POTUTO:
Yes
f
rna I 2m.
Were those diagnoses ones
20
that identified a learning disability particular
21
to writing?
22
MR. MELENEY:
23
all those documents!
so
24
documents for
25
between Dr. Monk and the
I did not have access to
I did
every student.
SDRe
not review those
That decision was
Office.
So,
I
I ) I
i~&llH
91
1
can't
2
disability for each of those students.
tell
3
you
that
I
MS. POTUTO:
knew
Dr.
of
the type of
Monk,
did
4
students with
5
learning disability that went to writing?
6
whom you
MS. MONK:
all the
worked have a diagnosed
Not
all
students
had a
7
diagnosis of a learning disability with writing.
8
There
9
students.
was
only
I
a
certain
would
just
segment
like
of
the
to say to Mr.
10
Meleney, each semester, and I have a copy of the
11
document, I
12
the document with the student's name
13
the
14
students.
15
provided Mr. Meleney with a copy of
disability
information
and all of
regarding
the
My file cabinet was available to him.
So, there
16
Meleney and
17
an opportunity to
was
an
opportunity.
Mr.
I were the only two people that had
look
at
their
files.
For
18
cor,fidentiality,
19
everyone to see.
they
were
not open files for
In answering your question
20
again, not
21
all students had a writing disability.
22
were to
23
about
24
writing disability that was diagnosed.
25
provide
today,
the
that
MS. POTUTO:
services
student
So
that
would
that
But if I
we talked
have
had a
every student
r
92
1
that is
2
were named for whom you provided the assistance,
3
all of
4
to writing, all three?
named in
here, at least the three that
them had diagnosed disabilities relating
5
MS. MONK:
6
memory is not that good, but I
7
documents in front of
me, and
8
as a
of yes
9
going to have to pass on that one without having
I do not
clear statement
have those
-- my
do not have those
cannot make that
or no.
10
their documents in front of me.
11
MS. POTUTO:
Okay.
Let
So, I am
me see if I
12
understand
you.
13
authorized
to
14
diagnosed learning disabilities
15
whatever the accommodations that would have been
16
provided as a part of the diagnosis or as a part
17
of
the
You
work
accommodation
contend
with
plan
that
students
with
derived
you were
who
had
regard to
from
the
is
diagnosis.
You \vere authorized to do that without
19
20
regard to
whether the students went through the
21
SORe process?
MS. MONK:
22
That is correct.
secondary facility
The SORe
23
was a
on campus to use as a
24
resource for students,
25
to be a part of SORe for me to work with them.
and so they
did not have
93
MS.
1
POTUTO:
Maybe I didn't ask the
2
question right.
3
I
4
any
5
accommodation, that. student would have had to go
6
through the SORe process.
7
I
10
student
find out.
on
campus
could
be
provided an
Let me just make sure
understood that from the University.
MR. through
the
ABELE:
SORe
if
All
they
students
are
to
must
go
receive
accommodations.
MS. POTUTO:
11
12
saying
13
policy?
14
trying to
thought I heard the University say that before
8
9
am just
I
that
you
MS. MONK:
Okay.
disagree
I
that
hear, then, you
that
was the
The policy with SORe, as I
15
understood it, and I am not trying to contradict
16
Dr. Abele in any way, if they were to receive an
17
accommodation,
a
classroom
accommodation, the
co~ld o~ly
18
classroom
19
if they were a part of the SORe.
20
accommodation
That did not preclude
them from being
I was
not providing a
21
able to
22
classroom accommodation.
23
be received
work with
me.
MS. POTOTO:
I
am
not
talking about
24
whether they
could work with a tutor outside of
25
SDRC, but whether without going through the SDRC
I.'
=&llH
94
1
anyone could
2
you
3
authorized
4
students
who
5
process.
I
say
6
give an accommodation.
that
you
to
did
not
description,
8
description
9
looking for,
you
were
acconunodations
for
go
through
the
SORC
want to find out where you are.
MS. MONK:
7
that
believe
provide
And I hear
you
it
Yes,
will
see
clearly
which
if you
was
read the job
that
states
in
student-athletes
11
Accommodations from
12
accommodations in their classroom.
with
job
what they were
someone
10
the
to
learning
work with
disabilities.
i
"
SORC
MS. POTUTO:
13
allowed
But
~lith
them
respect, and I
14
still don't know what your position
15
the University
16
not,
17
accommodation,
if
the
to get
is, I heard
say that whether in classroom or
student
that
was
student
going
would
to
get
an
have to be
95
1
to
take
2
10:30.
3
is
4
time.
a
break
at
this
time.
It is about
That
We will reconvene in ten minutes.
10:40.
So,
we
will take a break at this
Thank you.
(RECESS. )
5
are
ready to
7
start here after everyone gets seated.
I have a
8
couple of questions for the institution.
9
actually
6
CHAI&~N
THOMAS:
responsible
for
10
disabilities, whatever they
11
campus?
ABELE:
vie
We
Who is
determining
might
have
be,
a
the
on your
very clear
12
~JR.
13
written policy on that.
14
Resource Center is the only agency that can make
15
that determination.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
16
17
The
Monk given
Student Disability
At any time
that responsibility
was Dr.
or authority to
18
determi~e
19
athletes?
MR.
20
21
22
23
tr.at sr.e could
do that
Not
ABELE:
with student-
that I am aware of
sir.
Dr.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
Monk, were you
under those impressions?
24
MS.
25
determination
MONK:
that
I
a
student
never
had
made
a
a learning
~&llH
96
1
disability.
2
took the documentation that the student provided
3
to
4
were cleared through the
5
provided the documentation during that period of
6
time,
7
provided that documentation to us.
the
Athletic
or
8
9
That was not my responsibility.
when
Department,
they
did
I
not
learning disability.
either when they
clearinghouse and they
carne
to
diagnose
I
I
our
campus and
students with a
took the documentation
10
that was done by a professional psychologist, in
11
whichever state the student carne from.
12
came from the State of Washington,
13
was provided by the State of Washington.
14
If
they
15
provided by
16
i t was provided by
17
ever
give
Texas.
a
came
from
If they
the diagnosis
Texas,
it
was
If they came from Florida,
Florida.
diagnosis
for
At no
a
time did I
student with a
18
learning disability.
19
when they came to us.
MR. SMRT:
20
21
Dr. Monk worked with
22
It varies
23
her
24
percent
25
diagnosis.
by year,
latter
of
years.
those
The diagnosis was in place
As a clarification mainly,
maybe 50 student-athletes.
and it was increased during
We
can't
tell
student-athletes
you what had
a
,I
I
18
learning disability.
19
when they came to us.
The diagnosis was in place
!
I·
,! t~R.
20
SMRT:
21
Dr. Monk worked with
22
It varies
23
her
As a clarificatiqn mainly,
maybe 50 student-athletes.
!
J
by year,
latter
years.
II
and it was increased during
We
can't
tell
i1
you what
1/
24
percent
25
diagnosis.
of
those
student-athletes
had
I
II I,
a
II'
Ii I ,I' (I "
II '
I
!
(( II
I.
II ,I
'I
l
~&llH
97
We believe there are
1
some who didn't,
2
but we
can't tell you -- we can't give you what
3
percent.
4
work
5
percent or
6
vast majority were not registered.
~vi
We know that of
th,
that
were
so were
CHAIRt'1AN
7
the athletes
diagnosed, less than 10
registered \;i th
SORC.
From
THOMAS:
8
institutional perspective, could
9
of
when
procedurally,
she did
you
10
athletes would come in,
11
determining
12
upon their
13
junior
14
depend upon them to go to the SORC
15
evaluated?
16
would use to determine the disabilities?
17
their
level
academic
college,
or
an
just kind
prospective
was there
The
student-
a process in
of disabilities based
record
from
whatever,
high school,
or did you just
Center to be
What was the process the institution
MR. ABELE:
The
process
begins with
" ') 18
the
st~dent
self-identifying
to
the
Student
I
~i
,I
19
Disability Center.
All
20
handbook
21
disability and if they
22
the
23
required to bring in
students
are
given a
,I(
il
that
Student
outlines
if they have a student
choose to
register with
Center,
they would be
Disability
the
date
of
"', I' iT
the current
L "
if there
24
diagnostic evaluation,
25
diagnostic evaluation, whether
was an earlier
or
not
that is
:,.•
/'
,'
'( :/
I.
1
ii'
I ,
II
t '"I I~
I
L
J
=&llH
98 r--
I 1
followed,
the
Diagnostic Statistical Manual of
2
the American Psychiatric Association, along with
3
the criteria and the professional credentials of
4
the individual \"ho performed the diagnosis.
The reason
5
is
that they
are required to
6
register
7
disability
8
relating
9
would have to go through that process.
the
are
to
statutes
different
collegiate
from
staff,
to
is
K-12
those
rules
So, they
disability.
That information
10
relating
assessed
by the
11
professional
12
interview
occurs,
13
necessary.
That is clearly outlined in both the
14
Student Handbook and the University Procedures.
and
and
that
any
CHAIRNAN THOMAS:
15
16
couple of
things.
17
Nonk, and it does
The job
have
some
I
is
when
the
accommodations
have
noticed a
description of Dr.
wordage
in there
:"8
that indicates
19
di.sabilities.
20
So,
about an
assessment of learning
I am trying to --
Dr.
Monk,
you
again,
correct me.
21
incorrect,
22
noticed
23
credentials,
24
handicaps and so on and so forth,
25
and all
that
all
in
of
terms
your
of
if
I am
I also
professional
retardation
and
apprenticeship
those credentials were on the secondary
r
99
1
level,
2
level.
3
4
5
6
7
they
Am
were
not
on
correct
I
the
in
post-secondary
that assessment of
your credentials?
MS. MONK:
Licensed
in
the
state is
Do
you
have any
going to be only K through 12.
CHAIRMAN
THOMAS:
8
credentials,
9
would allow you to go post-secondary in terms of
10
11
professional
credentials,
disabilities assessments?
MS. MONK:
I
have a
12
in Education
13
same as President Wetherell has.
14
that
Leadership.
CHAIfu~N
Doctorate Degree
I believe that is the
THOMAS:
I
am
talking
15
specifically about the credentials, professional
16
credentials as you had
17
clearly indicates
with K
that you
through 12, that
are certified to do
18
MS. YIONK:
19
20
r
dah, dah, dah.
I
did not
know that those
credentials exist.
21
22
question is from the
23
referral process
24
students
25
evaluated for
probably
AASS
in terms
need
My
Okay.
THOMAS:
CHAlfu~AN
Office,
is
last
there a
of determining these
to
be
learning disability?
assessed
or
Can someone
~&l1H
100 ~
1
explain what that process is and how many actual
2
students you did have?
3
MR.
Some
SMRT:
athletes came with a
4
diagnosis and the AASS sent out some athletes to
5
get
6
process works, there were some on campus, was an
7
on-campus facility
8
private group that also did that.
tested.
9
If
So,
yes,
you
want
that did
some
to
know how that
that.
came
and
There was a
some
were
10
diagnosed when
11
back to your question about the job description,
12
because
13
Dr. Monk's
the
14
they arrived.
job
I did want to go
description -- Exhibit 1-8 is
draft during
the interview process.
1-7 is the job description.
1 c c~
about making protocol for
16
campus.
17
that
So, I
she
has
1-7 talks
working with
SORe on
am not sure if anywhere it says
the
authority
to
provide
18
NS.
19
20
r
accorrunodations.
JENNINGS:
Look
at
No.
13,
Question No. 13 on the job description.
MR. SNRT:
21
22
conduct
23
recommendations and
24
and monitor
25
what
she
I
have
that.
assessments,
learning
make
appropriate support counsel
That is exactly
student-athletes.
was
It says
supposed
to
do,
and
develop
~&l1H
101 II
1
"
,
learning strategies.
2
In her interview, she talked about you
3
would work differently with people with learning
4
disabilities.
5
range of
6
provided.
Obviously, we are talking about a
disability
She
7
8
there
are
9
individuals
or
talked
about
different
with
accommodation
different
that makes sense.
11
what
12
strategies(
13
different accommodations.
is
I see
MS. JENNINGS:
14
the
you
16
"Conduct,
17
assessments is capitalized.
over
Learning
disabilities,
and
13 is exactly
individuals
With
15
skipped
for
to do, develop learning
with
work
interview
strategies
that on
supposed
to
the
learning
10
she
in
that is
with
all due respect,
first
Assessments,"
I
three
words,
and learning
guess
I
would
:8
like to generalize. the question a little bit and
19
say I don't understand why you hired a person of
20
her qualifications
21
to do.
I have
22
expect
and what
heard
her
to
a
do,
you did expect her
lot
about
23
didn't
24
clear idea of what she was supposed to
25
somebody help to clarify that for me?
what you
but I don't have a
do.
Can
-=::&llH
102
MR.
1
I
Si'lRT:
guess Mark would be the
2
appropriate person since he
3
supervised her.
4
anSvler that.
6
a
7
posi tion is
8
athletics academic
9
period of time.
specialist
some~vhat
new
our
was for
12
between
13
the student-athlete population.
14
were
15
background
16
disabilities and
17
board and
an
we
were
somebody to build a bridge
University
find
the
academics and
perhaps
what
looking for
to
program,
under
11
your
out and seek
support programs during that
Nationally,
10
for
person who
I would like to
In our efforts to go
5
learning
Yes,
MELENEY:
MR.
was the
expert,
with
community
ask
that
So, our efforts
find
students
to support
someone
with
person
with
learr:ing
to
corne on
establish programming for our student
l8
r
population.
So, our goal vIas
19
to
again
develop a
20
stand-alone program
21
individuals but would be
22
This is where our commitment to Dr. Monk to work
23
closely
with
24
through
the
25
with disabilities and to provide the appropriate
the
that would not be driven by
SORe
University
driven
to
by
a process.
build
that bridge
community
of students
l
103
1
services as defined by SORC.
2
MS. JENNINGS:
And hOI; did you clarify
3
to her, a person with
4
diagnosing and
5
\vhat accorrunodations
6
limits of this were and what was the job of SORe
7
versus what was her responsibility?
8
MR.
9
conversations
a
lot
in assessing
were
MELENEY:
of
and in determining
necessary,
I
throughout
experience in
this
where the
believe
in
process,
one
it was
10
the
11
expertise to
12
help guide our student-athlete population to the
13
right accommodations.
14
discussions
were
related
to
using
your
help understand the process and to
So,
I
valued
her
expertise and her
15
experience in that nature, but also
16
understood that
17
disabilities came directly from the SORC Office.
was clearly
our direction for students with
believe
that
and
Brenda
18
I
19
conversations throughout.
20
That is why she
she came
I
reached
had
out
those
to that
21
office when
22
to build that bridge between the two offices.
24
description
25
forth,
and
surely
given
you
the
Given
JENNINGS:
MS.
23
on board, and the efforts
her
expected
job
background, and so
her
to
provide
,,& 11 H 104
1
accommodations,
2
SORC?
not
just
1-1R. 1-1ELENEY:
3
to
laissez with the
Only accommodations that
4
were defined clearly by SORC, because Brenda and
5
I had --
6
appropriate
7
period of time.
we
so
many
conversations about
accommodations
This is obviously an
8
9
had
lot of
avenues to
it.
throughout
this
area that
has a
What we spoke to often
Can
10
was is this the appropriate accommodation?
11
we provide
any of these accommodations,
and who
12
do we take
our
in this
13
area?
14
our orders from the SORC.
15
It was
marching
orders
clearly understood
1-1S. JENNINGS:
16
they didn't
17
their disability.
from
that we took
Or. 'Ionk, you said that
need certification from the SORe of
I am a
general counsel
at a
18
~nivers~tYI
19
in the United
20
single certification
21
single student who wants
22
certified.
and: am not aware of any university
That
23
States
that
does
not
office, only
doesn't
24
assessment tests, it means
25
so c
have one
one is every
accommodations must be
mean
conducting
the
evaluating them, and
am really interested in why you think they
l-=&llH
105
1
didn't need certification.
MS. MONK:
2
3
that they --
I
MS. JENNINGS:
4
5
I said
I never said that.
wrote it
down as a
direct quote.
MS. MONK:
6
7
talking about
8
have
9
providing
10
provider.
to
look
I am
accommodations,
at
what
I
I
was
I
accommodations.
I was providing
11
When
sorry.
I was
think that you
doing
was
services
a
was not
service
to students
12
with learning disabilities, because I understood
13
what
14
accommodations
15
accommodations,
16
classroom
17
SDRe.
they
needed.
in
If
the
they
classroom,
every student
accommodations
were
that
seeking
classroom
was seeking
were sent through the
They were the
18
only
determine
could
agency
if
there
19
that
20
accommodations
21
classroom.
22
had to do with different from service.
23
that
they
Accommodations
I
think I go
I
could
on canpus
use
were
in their
are something that
back to
the Reading and
saw myself as almost an in-
24
Writing Center.
25
house specialist in how
to
sit
down
with the
L.
::&llH
:06
1
student «ith a learning disability and help them
2
learn how to learn.
I did exactly «hat
3
and
4
that
was
my job description
to provide strategies for
5
learning
6
providing
7
accommodations for those students.
those
students.
accommodations t
If
8
9
for
a
accommodation in
SDRC,
student
was
those
requesting
an
they were sent
10
through
11
provided through
12
professor and asked for accommodation.
them.
not
was not requesting
I
the classroom,
and
was
I
accommodations
were
I have never called one
13
I never met with a professor and asked
14
for an accommodation, and those were -- this was
15
the responsibility of SDRC.
16
providing
17
services that were provided
services
any
I
never saw
different
by the
than
it in
the
Reading and
18
Writing Center,
19
Those
the Math Center.
services
were
I
could
20
provide because I did
21
'.,hat students needed, and I taught them learning
22
strategies so
23
academically in the classroom.
would
MS. JENNINGS:
24
25
they
have an
that
times
that
SDRe
only
be
You
understanding of
able
to perform
have said several
provided
classroom
L.
::&l1H
:;'07
That's
1
accommodations.
2
me,
3
university
4
classroom accommodations.
because
whose
I
am
SDRC
unfamiliar
with any
Office limits itself to
So, can you tell
5
6
again
really astonishing to
me why
you believed
that?
First of all, SORC did not
MS. MONK:
7
8
have tutors that were able to tutor the students
9
with learning disabilities.
10
started, and that may
11
time
12
volunteer students.
I
that
So,
13
14
with
the
15
like I
students
16
tutoring
17
technology.
was.
have changed,
started
they
At the time, t-.rhen I
were
with
So,
services;
They did
I
all
the
not
equipped
tutors
were
to work
learning disabilities
provided
they
but at the
a
lot
of the
were limited in their
have Kurzweil,
and their
18
students did go to SDRC.
19
They
to
SDRC
Kurzweil reader.
to
utilize
They took
some of
some
of
20
did
21
technology.
22
SORC,
23
appropriate.
24
they could provide one-an-one to students.
25
go
utilized
r
if
that
was
an
They
the
their exams at
accommodation
that was
So, SDRC was very limited in what
MS. POTUTO:
If I can
just interject.
L
~&llH
108
1
The statutes
2
defined meaning for
3
very distinct
4
two or three meanings floating around here.
The
5
I
accowmodation.
have a
feeling that we have got at least
SDRe,
in
revealing
evaluations
6
done by licensed psychologists or psychiatrists,
7
would
8
particular
9
area.
10
provide
accommodations
learning
They
would
related
decide
what accommodations
Let us say one of those accommodations
might be that
13
that
14
particular
15
disability can listen to the tapes.
17
the
disability in a particular
12
16
to
under the law were appropriate and necessary.
11
H
with regard to disabilities have a
a
classroom
student
has
who
has
Now t
lectures
that
as I understand it.
a
be
troGble
particular
taped so
with
the
learning
would be the accommodation,
Who provides the
tapes and
18
who assists
in getting
19
is a different question.
20
with me
21
with that distinction, Dr. Honk?
-- well,
that accommodation done
Now,
would you agree
first of all, would you agree
22
HS. MONK:
23
HS. POTUTO:
Yes.
Okay.
So,
what you are
if I understand you, is that the
24
talking about,
25
accommodations that were required
under the law
I I'
r-=&llE
109
1
for
a
particular
2
learning
3
elsewhere.
student given the particular
disability
be
would
determined
Now, we have a disagreement whether it
4
5
has to be done through SDRe
6
take
7
psychiatrist
8
Putting that aside, that diagnosis would be made
9
elsewhere,
came
that
one
or
the
or whether
in
which
had
psychologist
accommodations
that
you can
some
other
done
would
it.
be
10
required would be determined elsewhere, and then
11
what you say
12
whatever
13
new ones.
the
you
were
doing
was facilitating
accommodation was,
14
Do I have it?
15
MS. MONK:
16
MS. POTUTO:
17
MS. JENNINGS:
not describing
Yes, you do.
All right.
The
problem with that
18
is that
the diagnostician
does not dictate the
r 19
accommodation that the university
20
may recommend,
21
institution determines the accommodation that is
22
required.
but it
MS. POTUTO:
23
24
was to
define out
25
she does.
Wherever
provides.
does not determine.
All
what she
I was
It
The
trying to do
is suggesting that
the accommodation is being
l
[&112 ::"10
1
determined,
2
area, but
3
you are using accommodations rather loosely over
4
there because
5
under the law.
I don't Nant
you don't
MS. MONK:
7
CHAlfu~N
8
MR. LECHNER:
10
different area.
THOMAS:
Dr.
Monk,
in
a little
typed a paper; is that correct?
12
'IR. LECHNER:
That is correct.
Did
you
ever
type an
outline for a paper?
14
MS. MONK:
15
MR.
17
Judge Lechner.
You said before that you never
MS. MONK:
16
mean the accommodation
That is correct.
11
13
into that wide
Nherever it is that it is being done,
6
9
to get
Yes.
LECHNER:
Where did you get the
information to put in that outline?
~IS.
MONK:
From the student.
:8 ~9
MR. LECHNER:
Did you ever
change any
of it?
20
MS. MONK:
To
21
no.
22
be
23
disability, or even if
24
their language
25
would guide them to the
change their thoughts/
To change their grammar, yes.
times
where
they
would
There would
have
they were
a
writing
dyslexia, and
would be very mixed up,
correct
I'
way
and so I
to
say a
) I
,
1~&llH
111
1
sentence.
2 I
They might
have the
verb in front of
I
3
the noun, and
4
somewhere, or it may be jumbled up and they made
5
up words.
6
them
7
they would be able
8
would be legible for someone to read.
preposition
hung
Those were things that I
through
9
the
so
out there
would guide
that through their disability
to
construct
a
paper that
How
would you know the
10
subject matter they were in?
Would they explain
11
it to you?
MR. LECHNER:
12
MS. MONK:
Every student that I worked
13
with with a diagnosed learning disability, those
14
disabilities were -- their paperwork was kept in
15
my
16
available
17
demand by academic counselors if they needed it,
office.
That
on
demand
was
by
information
Mr.
that
iYleleney,
was
also on
18
r
coaches.
19
elR.
20
wrong.
21
writing, did
22
the paper?
23
I
LECHNER:
meant
from
Maybe my question was
the
paper
they
were
they explain the subject matter of
MS. MONK:
Yes.
I
mean,
they would
24
come to me with -- they knew what they needed to
25
do.
They just didn't know how to do it.
L
I
112
1
I I
MR. LECHNER:
I
am not
talking about
2
the
3
paper with
4
citations.
5
explained to you what the subject
6
paper was, whether it was a book
7
it was
8
whether it
9
explain what they were talking about to you?
assignment,
10
a
for
example,
certain
I
am
number
talking
a comparison l
write a 25-page
of
footnotes or
about whether they
matter of the
revie~
whether it
was an essay,
was a philosophical essay.
MS. MONK:
11
further
with
12
writing
disability
13
disability.
14
critical essay on a
15
English short story.
Yes.
that.
I
So, let's
Did they
want to go one step
Usually,
they
whether
also
if
had
they had a
a
reading
say they had to write a
short story
in English, an
16
The first thing that the student and I
17
would have done, if they were unable to read the
J.8
short story
because it was written,
say, on the
j' r
19
eighth or
n~nth-grade
20
read
the
21
severity of their learning
22
read the story.
23
A lot
on
level, and maybe they only
second-grade level because of the
disability,
we would
of times IVe IVould just do -- it
24
was almost like paired reading.
They would read
25
a paragraph, become very tired, and I would read
I
I
113
1
the paragraph.
2
short story from beginning to end.
3
So, we would read the story,
Then they
would look
at the question
4
that
5
assignment they were trying to answer.
6
talk
7
understanding
8
they would proceed with doing it.
they
were
through
9
trying
it,
of
to
and
MR. LECHNER:
So,
paired
11
book, or
12
subject
13
explain that book to them?
and
you
whatever that
matter
of
they
or
when
you
the
We would
had
they needed to do,
10
reading
answer,
once
what
the
an
then
had this
read the essay or the
was supposed
to be the
the critical essay, did you
14
MS. MONK:
15
MR. LECHNER:
Yes.
Did
you
explain some
16
criticisms or give them some ideas on what their
17
paper should be?
It was a process.
~8
MS. MONK:
19
MR. LECHNER:
20
me.
That is a
yes or no?
21
MS. MONK:
22
MR. LECHNER:
23
to them,
24
give you an outline?
25
Excuse
"hat their
MS. MONK:
Yes. After
you explain that
paper should
be, did they
Yes.
I'
L
L:&l1E
114
MR. LECHNER:
2
whether that outline was correct or incorrect?
3
MS. MONK:
4
MR. LECHNER:
5
Did you explain to them
Yes.
Were
they in agreement
with you or in disagreement at times?
6
MS. MONK:
7
MR. LECHNER:
Yes.
After you explained the
8
book to them and after you explained the outline
9
in that,
10
did you have any further discussions?
~IS.
MONK:
They would then write, and
11
then they ;lQuld come
12
their initial writing.
13
t-lR.
14
that vlriting?
~IS.
16
17
back and
LECHNER:
MONK:
physical
layout
And did you criticize
Yes.
MR. LECHNER:
the
we would discuss
I
of
am not
talking about
the writing where the
18
verbs and adjectives were, hanging prepositions,
19
split
20
substance of it?
definitives.
21
MS. MONK:
22
about
23
they on track.
24
25
how
they
Did
Yes.
you
I
criticize
mean,
the
we talked
developed the writing and were
MR. LECHNER:
! Did
you
criticize the
substance of what the student was saying?
L
[&llH 115
1
2
"IS. HONK:
I am not sure I understand
what you are saying.
3
MR. LECHNER:
4
the substance
5
to you as to what the
6
the criticism?
of what
you
MS. MONK:
8
MR. LECHNER:
disagree ,"i th
the student was offering
student was
7
9
Did
proposing as
No.
Did you ever change any
thought of a student?
10
MS. MONK:
11
MR. LECHNER:
That may be
it
believe
12
I
13
explained to me
14
book and
15
level where you had
16
student, walk
17
you are telling
find
hard
No.
to
that
a student
you
had
a fact, but
when
you
just
an eighth-grade
with a second-grade reading
to
read
the
book
to the
the student through the book, and
me
that
whatever
the student
18
said you took verbatim.
19
~
find
20
that is the case,
21
view,
22
else you want to
23
the opportunity.
24
25
['
it hard
to
fine.
But from
I find it difficult.
say to
MS. MONK:
be there to see
I
bel~eve
that.
If
my point of
If there is anything
that, I
will give you
think you would have to
the process.
The
process was
L
C_&llH
116
1
not a
2
to be.
3
4
3D-minute process as you are outlining it
It was --
MR. LECHNER:
didn't
suggest any
time.
5
MS. MONK:
6
MR. LECHNER:
7
I
It is very time-consuming.
Excuse me one second.
I
didn't suggest any time period.
8
Go ahead.
9
MS.
MONK:
was
It
a
very
tirne-
10
consuming process.
11
a student on a
writing
12
many different
factors that
13
was a process that sometimes went on for a week,
14
sometimes it went on for two weeks, sometimes it
15
went on for four weeks.
,
r
assignment,
It was a process
LO
l7
Any time that I worked with
writing
and
re-writing,
there were
went into
of
writing
it.
It
and re-
and investigating and
18
looking, and coming up
with how
19
their
in
20
professor was asking for.
thoughts
MR. LECHNER:
21
22
down
thoughts.
the
they could put
way
Well, he gave
that
the
you these
You typed them out; is that correct?
23
MS. MONK:
24
MR. LECHNER:
25
MS. MONK:
That is correct.
They wrote them out?
The
majority of the time.
L
117
1
There were a couple of occasions where it
2
became -- I did use the
3
them
4
depended
5
disability.
with
6
.
-;
a
on
general
the
But on
word processor
outline.
severity
8
was not
9
not a normal teaching procedure.
a normal
operating procedure.
as
11
students there were probably
12
semester
13
based
14
disabili ty.
15
that
on
students,
would
the
But
was
a
It was
I worked with
two or
three each
more
of my time
of
their
process.
16
something that just happened.
17
not in
what the
or it
and out of those 65
require
severity
it
learning
That did not occur
10
65
the
that
a day-to-day basis, that was a
very rare occurrence.
as
Again,
of
7
many
to help
Ny
student needed
learning
It was not
thoughts were
to say,
it was
18
their thQughts.
I
did help
them clarify their
r 19
thoughts
20
understood,
21
understood and not just a mumble jumble of words
22
that
23
~..,ere
at
times
that
so
that
their
they
thoughts
could
be
could
be
thrown out on a paper.
1m. LECHNER:
Did you ever
suggest to
24
the
25
student may have missed the point, may not be on
student
that
the criticisn offered by the
L
I I
C&llH 118
1
point, or may be incorrect?
2
MS.
3
question,
4
you?
5
asking?"
MONK:
Usually in an open-ended
I might say,
IIHow does
this sound to
Does this sound like what the question was
,
I
f-
6
MR. LECHNER:
7
the student
8
misses the point?
9
10
11
~IS.
Did you ever
suggest to
that the criticism was incorrect or
~IONK:
Their
finished product is
what they want was their thoughts.
MR.
LECHNER:
One more opportunity.
12
Did you ever suggest
13
criticism was incorrect or missing the point?
14
MS. MONK:
15
CHAr&~N
to the
student that their
No.
THOMAS:
Let
me
ask
the
you
provide NCAA
16
institution a question.
17
rules education for personnel in the AASS area?
Did
18
~1R.
Obviously,
SMRT:
Dr. Monk I'Jas
1.9
there for several years, and so we will do it in
20
pieces
21
could direct what
22
period.
23
because
has
it
went
MR. BATTLE:
evolved.
on
when Dr. Monk first came on
25
~Jeleney
that
the initial
Our educational efforts,
24
stated,
during
Brian maybe
board, were
as Mr.
this was a new position.
l
119
~
1
At the time she came on
2
of us in the office.
3
Bob Minnix
board there
oversaw the
were three
office as the
4
Associate A.D.; who was in charge of educational
5
efforts
6
Parker, and I was
7
assisted them in any of those efforts.
at
8
9
that
After
time,
was
compliance
about
nine
directed by Penny
coordinator.
We
months, I believe,
when Dr. Monk was on staff, Mr. Meleney asked us
10
to put
11
Registrar, Academics and Compliance at that time
12
would
13
things.
on the
meet
14
agenda, which our Financial Aid,
once
During
a
that
semester to get at certain
educational
15
were trying
16
specialists could provide.
17
them they
process, we
to learn what services the learning
At that time ;,e told
could only provide services that were
l8
provided by SORe.
In
19
regards
to
other
educational
20
opportunities for
21
Office, it was highly
22
with Mr.
23
sessions at
24
which I believe most of the staff did attend.
25
Meleney,
the
the Athletic Academic Support
reco~~ended
that
in discussions
they attend their NAAAA
national
and
regional level,
In addition to that, ·some of the staff
I'
[&l1H
120 f"--
I
1
members attended the NCAA regional seminars.
2
I
3
with the Financial Aid, Registrar, Academics and
4
Compliance
5
which education was a part of
6
areas.
stated
7
earlier,
in
that
2005
8
of each year we
9
Director of
the semester meetings
became
In addition
a monthly meeting,
that in different
to that, at the beginning
would meet
as a
staff and the
Athletics would have what we call a
10
certification and compliance meeting.
11
talk
12
Athletic Department as well
l3
point in
14
did not know of any NCAA rules violations.
about
15
the
state
time signing
of
tvere
17
Athletics
employed
at
Department
the
We would
union with the
as stating
the NCAA
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
16
As
Dr.
Florida
give
at that
form that they
Monk, while you
State,
you
did
any
the
rules
18
education regarding NCAA?
19
NS.
The two policies that we
t10NK:
20
talked about was that the typing of a
21
a student, and any other services that you might
22
give a
23
paper, and
24
an extra benefit.
25
student
as
far
as
those services
So, those
w~re
pens,
paper for
pencils and
that would have been
the two rules, and when
I'
121
1
you talk about what typing a paper is, and maybe
2
this is a good point to bring that up.
3
this was my poor interpretation of it although I
4
know why -- I guess I stand on this.
5
When
I
think
about
Maybe
the typing of a
6
paper!
7
occurs when
8
someone in the Athletic Department or someone on
9
campus, if you will just type this paper for me,
I
considered that to be
a student
a violation that
can request at will from
10
or that paper is
typed for
11
them in
draft form, that they can then
12
take it to class and get a grade for it.
13
a final
That,
to
me,
was
them and
my understanding of
14
what
15
student through the process
16
and using
17
we were in the process of getting more
typing
a
paper
technology,
for.
handed to
In facilitating a
of writing
a paper
technology drives us all,
and more
18
technology, of
19
Speak Naturally, trying to get those programs on
20
so that students in the Athletic Department that
21
had a learning disability in reading and writing
22
could
23
speak into a
24
~vould
25
use
using Kurzweil
that
technology
computer
and
reader, of using
so that they could
a
finished product
come out.
I
would
have
never
been put into a
I\
122
k
1
place where
2
using a
3
accommodations was typing a
4
them with
5
they did not have to purchase it themselves.
6
I
might
word processor.
pens and
CHAlfu~N
we
have
paper and providing
pencils and
THOMAS:
if
8
regarding AASS Department
9
there specific
ask
facilitate them
But as far as the two
7
can
to
with
paper, so that
Okay.
some
~lr.
Meleney I
specificity
and
the
here
SDRC.
education, NCAA rules education,
10
that were covered and reviewed and
11
in
12
disabilities, what you could and couldn't do?
meetings
13
that
related
talked about
to
learning
Was that ever mentioned, and anything,
14
any
15
disseminated
16
areas?
17
Was
documentation
~IR.
to
to
the
MELENEY:
indicate
personnel
Yes,
sir,
that
in
this \'ias
those
there was.
two
We
18
conducted weekly staff meetings.
19
meetings we listed at times in our agenda issues
2D
of question, any services of questions.
We had
21
opportunities
tested
22
through compliance, where we did the 3D-question
23
test related
24
bylaws that were
25
and academic support.
where
to Bylaw
we
were
At those staff
actually
14 mainly,
related
to
but to other
academic services
L
123
So,
we
conducted
Brenda was involved with
those
NAAAA and
processes.
I am deeply
involved in NAAAA as well.
CHAlfu~AN
Monk,
THO~mS:
In
essence,
Dr.
if Mr. Meleney's articulation is accurate,
then you
knew what you could and couldn't do in
terms of extra benefits with learning disability student-athletes?
MS. MONK:
paper for
them
pencils, paper,
I
or
knew I could not type a
provide
so they
them
with
a pen,
would have to purchase
it.
CHAIR~N
THOMAS:
So,
in
essence,
That is correct.
I knew I
everything else you did not know?
MS. MONK:
could not
classroom,
provide
and
them
that
accommodations
that
had
in the
to be provided
18
through SDRC.
19
CHAlfu~AN
20
MS. POTUTO:
21
22
THOMAS:
Professor Potuto.
Do
you
get
training on
the definition of an extra benefit?
MS.
MONK:
An
extra
23
something that a student
24
Athletic Department
25
outside the Athletic Department,
could
benefit
receive
was
in the
that they could not receive
that a regular
I'
L
C&llH 124
1
student could
2
Department.
3
4
not receive
MS. POTOTO:
outside the Athletic
Let
me get
back to the
compliance.
5
Did you
do specific
training on what
6
an extra benefit means?
7
you can
8
this, you may not do this, you can do this.
9
in
do a
another
list you
level,
the
I
mean, at
may not
basic
one level
do, you can do
But
principle as to
10
where the dividing line is, so that you can make
11
some
12
often are more useful.
13
14
of
the
more
discreet decisions,
Did Academic Services get
I think
the general
instruction on what an extra benefit is?
15
MR.
BATTLE:
Yes,
ma'am, they did.
16
The basic understanding, as Dr. Monk has stated,
17
is our
premise was if you cannot give it to the
18
general student!
19
student-athlete.
20
then you cannot give
To take it a step further,
21
where Dr. Monk was
22
did a
23
it
24
situations
25
She was in those
was
present,
tutorial education
specifically
what
every
in meetings
semester we
with the tutors where
described
constituted
meetings
it to the
and
in
different
an extra benefit.
understood that
125
1
education.
2
3
MS.
POTUTO:
Dr.
Monk,
if I can,
would like to follow up.
4
Mr. Meleney,
wanted
to
did
say?
you
have something
wanted to follow up a
5
you
6
little on what Judge Lechner was pursuing.
7
educational
8
administration,
9
education; is that correct?
with
MS. MONK:
11
MS. POTUTO:
12
student
13
level,
14
example earlier,
15
what you said,
16
They
who
has
which
course, and
I
background
10
17
I
a
in
educational
specialty
in
special
That is correct.
Okay.
got
is
is
Your
what
a
So, you have got a
second-grade
I
or 'driting
reading
think you used as an
level,
I
guess is
a second-grade writing level.
are
they are
in
an
English
supposed to
Literature
read Tale of
18
T\.JO
19
Cities?
Cities.
Are
you familiar with Tale of Two
20
rviS.
21
MS. POTUTO:
MONK:
I
have read it,
So
Okay.
yes.
the student
22
comes to
you after you have spent -- I am being
23
assisted
over
24
accommodation.
25
for a period of time on the book.
here.
She
just
I~
gave
me
an
You have worked with the student
II
1~&l1H
126
1
Then the student goes off, and I think
2
you said
3
that right?
4
mouth.
they would write their own outline;
I don I t t-Jant
5
MS. MONK:
6
MS.
to put
words in your
Yes, ma'am.
POTUTO:
Okay.
So, the student
7
comes back and tells you that the two
8
the book are Rome and Alexandria in Egypt.
9
do you do next?
10
is
MS. MONK:
You
11
at the
12
was a very long process.
scenario in
13
MS. POTUTO:
14
MS. MONK:
know, I
trying to
cities in
What
guess we look
fill it out.
It
No, no.
I
understand.
15
process.
I mean,
16
summaries,
we re-read the
book.
17
incorrect
information,
it
I
was a long
we read the book, we read the
If
would
they had
be
my
18
responsibility to guide them in the ways to find
19
the correct information.
20
MS.
21
do.
22
in the
23
the student.
24 25
POTUTO:
Tell me what you would
The student tells you
book are
that the
two cities
Florence and Alexandria.
I am
[
You just gave me --
MS. MONK:
We would read.
incorrect inform~tion,
we would
If that was
(,
go back and we
1
<
J.
['
,
,
I
I
I
I
C&llH 127
1
would re-read the information
2
correct information.
3
MS. POTUTO:
So,
until he
had the
what would you tell
4
me?
5
there is something here that is not right?
We are going to go back and re-read because
6
MS.
7
them
8
reading.
like
I would say something to
MONK:
you
may
have
misinterpreted
your
Let's read it again.
CHAIRMAN
9
THOMAS:
Any
further
I, 10
questions?
11
MS. POTUTO:
So,
I
assume
from what
12
you said,
13
of the
14
lengthy
15
forth, and you would never at any point say when
16
you
17
error?
and particularly from,
responses
process.
designated
that
But
these
this
you
two
I think,
could
be
in one
a very
would go back and
cities there was an
18
~lS.
That
MONK:
not
teaching.
19
Teaching is
20
own
21
information.
22
used
23
teaching
24
looking
25
materials, looking at it a different way.
mistakes
the
allowing the
is
and
to
I was
experience,
other
find
and
a teacher.
standard
at
student to find their
it
resources,
their
I taught and I
teaching l
and
gain
professional
would
be
re-reading
maybe
1
the
!
,\,-
12B
It was not my purpose to give them any
1
2
information.
That is
3
only occurs
when the
4
find out information on their own.
5
get an
Teaching
teaching.
student can learn and can
MS. POTUTO:
If
I am
law class
and I
7
are eight Justices on
B
say that is wrong/ I am no longer teaching?
MS.
10
process.
11
tape
12
student.
13
understand.
answer from
in a
6
9
I-~
not
a student that there
the Supreme
MONK:
You
know,
Court,
and I
it is a long
cannot outline -- I wish I had it on
I
where
you
I
could
think
that
see me working with the
is
the
14
You know,
15
saying to them that is right
16
I was
17
knew it was wrong and I was just
always giving
only
way to
I was not in the process of
or that
is wrong.
them an opportunity.
If
T
giving them an
18
opportur..ity to
19
to find the answer.
investigate it
on their ot-/n and
r I
d 20
MS. POTUTO:
And
what
would
be the
21
responsibility
22
cities are Alexandria and Florence! and you said
23
you may
24
read again,
25
vlould
we
of
the
student?
have misinterpreted,
would we
read
the
If
the two
let's go back and
read
the
page
that
entire
)
book or
designated the
I
I
II
I
I
L
I'
129
1 I
correct answer to the two cities?
\
MS.
2
a
After
~IONK:
few
3
used
4
going to insist that he read
5
read
6
what I asked him to do.
7
He
those
choice
the student probably
words
passages
would
to me because I was
the book
again or
again, he would have done
have
read,
we
would have
8
discussed, and giving him an opportunity to
9
have --
to be
at the same level as the student
10
who didn't need any
help.
11
the whole
12
Kurzweil read to him, or reading it two or three
13
times to allow them the opportunity to be on the
14
same level of classroom discussion, so that they
15
would be
16
those
17
learning disabilities.
purpose of
able to
students
You know,
reading to
that was
him or having
perform in the classroom with
who
did
not
have
diagnosed
I 18
VI'-' • i..::J
POTUTO:
What
19
again, and it is a
long
20
again,
it again,
21
and say that the
22
Rome.
23
24
25
and
I read
two
if I did read it
and
book,
I
read it
and I come to you
cities
are
Florence and
Is there a point at which you would stop?
MS.
MONK:
And
jGst
give them the
)
I
answer.
MS.
POTUTO:
No,
just
stop,
be
!
I'
C&l::"H
130
I
I \
1
permitted to
2
wrong because you have gone through
3
number
4
right answer.
of
5
I\
times
and
MS. MONK: would
paper that
they
they
7
constructed it.
That
8
always
choice
9
wanted that additional help
had
turn
the
was flat out
a process a
never did find the
There would be a point that
6
10
in
the
work
as
was their
they
choice.
had
They
of whether or not they
or
whether
or not
they wanted to turn in exactly what they did.
11
I
submit a
There were
12
choice not
13
turn in
14
in a failing grade.
15
I mean,
16
would have to work
17
the correct answers.
to come
work that
there was
many of
them who took the
through me,
and they would
was sub-par and would result
So,
there was
never any
with me
never any--
mandate that they
until they
got all
18
Nr.
~Ieleney,
19
it.
20
thought it was you,
I don't
want to misstate
I thought I heard somebody say that, and I
21
MR. MELENEY:
In
my conversations in
22
reference to a scribe, which maybe, I don't know
23
if you are describing the typist or a
24
the
25
scribe, because Brenda had
same
thing.
We
scribe as
got a definition that a
shared with
/'
us that
I
J
I
I
[&118 131
1
the software program that they used.
2
wrong.
3
But they actually had
4
place,
5
SORe to go
6
essence,
Dr. Abele
and
7
they
and
the
speak to that.
software
program in
trained the students who used
use
that
software,
which,
in
typed their paper for them.
That
8
wouldn't have
9
because they
10
can probably
I could be
was
any
the
need
service
to
that
provide
SORC
a typist,
had the technology to provide that
service.
11
MS. POTUTO:
My question is, I thought
12
I
13
answer back from SORC that outside
14
service
15
student, even with
16
the
17
provided.
understood
to
typing
Mr.
a
was
Meleney
diagnosed
a
not
to
you got an
the center a
learning
writing
a
say
disability
disability, that
service
that could be
18
Mr.
~eleneYI
19
it.
20
thought it was you.
I
don't
want to misstate
I thought I heard somebody say that, and I
21
MR. MELENEY:
In
my conversations in
22
reference to a scribe, which maybe, I don't know
23
if you are describing the typist or a
24
the
25
scribe, because Brenda had
same
thing.
scribe as
(
.
We
got a definition that a
shared with
us that
1
r
::&llH
132 i
<
1
under
2
eligible for a scribe,
3
scribe.
federal
4
I
law
asked
certain
students
should be
her
to
would be
eligible for a
do some research on
5
that.
6
guidelines that share that.
7
that --
8
information to the Compliance Office, but we did
9
get an answer from the Compliance Office.
10
I
asked
her
to
provide
some federal
We provided
don't know if we provided that direct
I
I
don't
know if
it was through their
11
discussions with SDRC as well, that we could not
12
provide a scribe directly.
13
MS.
POTUTO:
Mr.
Abele, was it you
14
that had talked about typists in
15
thought somebody
16
would like to get it corrected.
17
~lR.
there did.
ABELE:
I
If
particular?
I
I misheard, I
am reasonably familiar
i8
with the
services, and
_ am
unaware of typing
r~
I
19
services
20
Center.
21
disability such that
22
but
23
eight accommodations.
that
the
Student
Someone,
is
not
Disability
presume
I
they
would
Resource
may have been a
provide them,
one of their standard six or
They will send students, they are note
24
25
at
takers,
they
are
sign
language interpreters.
I [ 1-
[&llH
133
1
But I do not know of any typists.
2
1-IS. POTUTO:
3
MR. MELENEY:
4
reference you
5
mentioned that
6
type a paper.
8
what the
9
there.
Yes.
I
think the other
were speaking to is when Mr. Smrt
I said
MS. POTUTO:
7
I
Mr. Meleney.
to the
No,
staff you cannot
I was first getting
center's position
But let's go
was.
1,1
10
what did
11
typing?
12
When was it that you told the staff, and
you
tell
the
MR.
MELENEY:
staff
It
with
has
regard to
been so many
13
times.
I mean,
14
all of
us within the profession that you cannot
15
do.
From the moment Dr.
16
our
program,
17
level you cannot type a paper for a student.
typing of
she
was
a paper
Monk came
is known by
on board in
aware at the collegiate
I "
MS. POTUTO:
~8
So, you had staff who had
19
concerns about
20
was and had come to you on several occasions, so
21
much so
22
computer terminal on her lap.
23
whether she
knew where the line
that you told her she couldn't have the
Was
anything
24
oversee what
25
that the end of it?
else
done
to
try
to
she was doing or not doing, or was
I ,
\J
,\ ,
j'
1
[&llH 134
1
on
2
drafting -- helping a student draft
3
developing a study guide, because we will get in
4
this later.
the
difference
5
between
an outline,
When we talked about when I referenced
5
Dr. Monk,
7
Brenda
8
these issues
9
and she assured me that she
10
typing a paper and
when my staff came to me on concerns,
and
I
had
direct
conversations about
every time that it was approached,
understood the rule
and understood what she could and couldn't do.
11
MS. POTUTO:
Let's
try this, though.
12
If you tell her you may not type a paper and she
13
has typed
14
you, could say not,
15
16
17
part of
Did
the
the paper,
she could answer
I did not type the paper.
conversation
go
any beyond
typing a paper?
MR. MELENEY:
Yes,
ma'am.
They did.
:8
She gave me direct
19
she was
20
those issues.
21
visual learner, those were the examples that she
22
shared with me.
evidence of
the th~ngs that
working on, and I felt comfortable with
23
An outline, a
MS. POTUTO:
24
there
25
should not
was
a
directive
be at
I
diagram to
help a
thought somebody said
that a tutor counselor
a computer
terminal with the
!'
135
1
student.
2
We got to a point where
MR. MELENEY:
3
staff, throughout that three-year
4
time --
5
a t her computer,
6
when I went in to Dr. Monk and said, "Brenda, we
7
don't know what you are
8
concerns
9
that you understand what you can provide for the
if a
student,
11
student's
12
conversations
13
period of time.
14
15
16
17
staff member saw Dr. Monk sitting
that
10
and
lap.
period, every
they
you
t.... ere
working
on.
So,
We have
can't go further than that,
the
keyboard
II
I
that
uncomfortable.
mean,
she
and
needs to ,be in the
those
were
the
I had during that
MS.
POTUTO:
When
MR.
t1ELENEY:
Numerous conversations
would
that have
been?
from probably early '04 on.
18
MS. POTUTO:
So, you had staff who tad
19
concerns about
20
was and had come to you on several occasions, so
21
much so
22
computer terminal on her lap.
23
whether she
knew where the line
that you told her she couldn't have the
Was
anything
24
oversee what
25
that the end of it?
else
done
to
try
to
she was doing or not doing, or was
I
l \
I'
C&llH
136
MR. MELENEY:
1
No, I don't think -it was
2
ever
3
forefront of my thoughts
4
relationship
5
relationship.
the
6
end
of
it.
I think it was at the
throughout our working
together.
We communicated
we
to
each
7
believed in
8
was as an educator.
9
her education and her experience.
10
each other.
But
I
MS. POTUTO:
had a strong
other.
We
I believed in who she
recognized and respected
But, nonetheless, you had
11
staff
12
sufficiently
13
believe in her you gave her a specific directive
14
where the
15
to be slightly
16
17
saying
we
so
are
that
really
no
uncomfortable,
matter
keyboard should
be.
how much you
It sounds to me
inco~sistent.
MR. MELENEY: In that period of time,
I
will
speak
to that.
there '.-Jere not more than
\vhere the
18
four or five occasions
19
me directly,
20
evidence of any information
and at
They say
21
no time
I walked
did they have any
by Brenda's office
22
and she
23
their evidence of any wrongdoing.
MS. POTUTO:
24
25
is on a keyboard.
and say
I have
staff came to
That was the gist of
Did you go
to Compliance
staff people who are concerned,
I
I
[&llH 137
1
what might we do, what controls might we
2
place?
3
doing to either
4
appropriately or find out that she is not?
What
5
kind
of
put in
oversight should we be
determine
MR. MELENEY:
that
she
is acting
I did not.
What I did,
process.
There were
6
I believed in her and the
7
four occasions
8
this was happening on a weekly basis or anything
9
like that.
10
months.
It
was happening
so it wasn't like
once every eight
But I did not.
CHIlIRMAN THOMl\S:
11
12
in four years,
Judge
Lechner,
and
then Judge Park.
MR. PARK:
13
Mr.
Meleney,
14
at
15
background question to begin with.
Exhibit
1-6.
I
just
16
Have you got that?
17
MR. MELENEY:
sort
Yes, sir.
I am looking
of
have
a
Up ilO the right-hand corner
18
NR. PARK:
19
it says "Director's Office."
20
Was that your office?
21
MR. MELENEY:
22
~JR.
And
PARK:
23
reports that
Dr. Monk
24
student in the office
25
her, did
she give
Yes, sir, it is.
when
you
got these
was on a computer with a
and you
you an
went to
talk to
explanation for what
138
1
I
!
she was doing?
2
.l'-'lR. MELENEY:
3
MR. PARK:
Yes,
sir,
she did.
And you were satisfied with
4
that explanation based upon your experience
5
her?
6
MR. MELENEY:
7
MR.
Yes, sir,
PARK:
And
I
8
I was.
her
explanation
included her preparing an outline?
9
10
~vith
MR. MELENEY:
Yes, sir, at the time it
did.
11
MR. PARK:
12
CHAlfu~N
13
MR. LECHNER:
Thank you.
THOMAS:
Judge Lechner.
Dr. Monk,
in addition to
14
typing
15
ever,
16
putting thoughts
17
an example of how a good paragraph might look on
an
when
outline
a
from
student
on a
time-to-time, did you
was
having
a
problem
paper, give that student
paper?
19
MS.
20
class,
21
textbooks and
22
and provide
23
looked like.
24
We
25
the
If
"IONK:
English
it
class
were
had
an English
some wonderful
resources that you could pullout
them
with
would
go
what
a
good paragraph
online and look at some
paragraphs and \-Ihat they should look
like.
So,
I'
C&llE
139
1
the
answer
to
2
resources to provide that
3
of what a good paragraph would look like.
MR.
4
that
would be yes,
student with examples
Did you ever provide,
LECHNER:
5
personally, an example of
6
like?
I
7
MS.
MONK:
8
recall ever doing that.
9
doing that.
I would use
what
one
have
no
-- I do not
do not
recall ever
I
would look
Could I just -- I knO\; this may not
10
be the time, but
11
Meleney
12
do
say
that Mr.
times and seen me
doing exactly
the same thing
13
with
pencil
14
computer.
and
walked
to
my office many
pen
have
want
by
a
would
I
The technology
15
of the
as
just
16
But many
17
did for the students, for them
well
as with the
made
it easier.
outlines and the things that I
to
se~
it in my
18
own
19
them with a pen and a pencil as opposed to doing
20
them with a keyboard.
handwriting
21
and
MR. LECHNER:
scribbling, because I did
Now, did you ever type a
22
portion of a paper for --
23
draft, a
24
the final?
25
I
am
portion of
a draft
MS. MONK:
Sometimes
talking about a
before you got to
they would hand
I
1
:::&llH
140
1
me a
2
and their English was so poor, that for me to be
3
able to talk with the student I had to get it in
4
a format that I could read
5
able to talk to them about it.
draft where
6
So,
their handwriting was so poor
and that
there were times that I would take
7
their handwritten drafts and
8
computer
9
them on
10
11
so
that
the
the screen
put them
and try
to determine where
the mistakes were.
I would write the spelling exactly the
wy they had the
13
words would go exactly where it was.
14
to put it in a better format, and
15
I used technology to do it.
17
into the
two of us could look at
12
16
I would be
spelling.
MR. LECHNER:
that you used
to
put
The
Okay.
it
on
order
of the
I just had
that is where
Now, that format
the
screen, the
l8
COP.1puter,
19
paper and put it
20
same
21
correct?
way
a"
the
that
did
on the
student
22
MS. MONK:
23
MR. LECHNER:
24
25
take it from the
was
screen in
handwrote
exactly the
it;
is that
Correct.
Once
it
was
up there,
did you and the student work on improving it?
MS. MONK:
The student and I worked on
i
141
I
1
improving it.
2
Kurzweil.
I
used --
3
program
4
Kurzweil would
5
it and I would say,
6
sentence read.
7
say it the way you wanted to say it?'!
Kurz~<Jeil
that
reads
again, I
reader
a
is
sentence
read the
talk about
a
wonderful
and
then
you just
heard that
How could that be said?
That word
as
sentence we would stop
l'Okay,
They would say,
8
I
We
Did you
I'No, that didn't sound
9
right.
is not the word I would have
10
used."
11
able
12
they would correct their problems.
I, So when they
to
diagnose
MR.
13
heard
it,
they
would be
their own problems, and then
LECHNER:
Again,
using
your
14
example of
somebody with a second-grade reading
15
level, I
16
understand how
17
sophistication to take that, as you suggest, and
am having
a little
a second
difficult time to
grader would have that
[&llH 142
1
the very gifted range and with just a little bit
2
of guidance they could
3
grade writing level or that second-grade reading
4
level,
5
understand what they needed to change.
and
with
my
then
guidance
MR. LECHNER:
6
take
My
that second-
be
asking how you could make it better.
8
did you
9
grade reading or writing level to
10
help this
to
question was beyond
7
do to
able
What else
person with a second-
put a product
in a collegiate level finished product?
MS.
11
12
really,
the
13
Kurzweil
14
vocabulary
15
simple
16
would have
17
would
last
because
be
they
that
a
able
three
the
years,
Kurzweil
word,
word
In
MONK:
they
Thesaurus
to
look
years
it
would
could
look
that--
was
the
allow like a
at
a very
had used and then they
at
their
basis, they
up different words on
yJOuld be
18
their Thesaurus, and they
19
the
20
which of those words might fit into theirs.
meanings
of
those
The vocabulary,
21
22
greater
than
23
So,
24
that really
25
did.
the
there was the
vlords I
a
lot
second-grade
use of
allowed me
able to get
and then decide
of
times was
reading level.
that technology piece
to be able to do what I
I
I
18
their Thesaurus, and they
19
the
20
which of those words might fit into theirs.
rneanip.gs
of
those
The vocabulary,
21
22
greater
than
the
23
So, there was the
24
that really
25
did.
would be
"lords, and then decide
a
lot
second-grade
use of
allowed me
able to get
of
times was
reading level.
that technology piece
to be able to do what I
I ( [,
C&llH 143
1
MR. LECHNER:
Aside
from
changing a
2
word
3
portion of the sentence to another
4
paragraph, what
did you do to help them develop
5
a
a
6
talking about,
7
understand what the subject matter of
8
should or shouldn't be?
9
MS.
or
aside
critique
from
of
moving
book
or what
MONK:
11
with.
12
their reading level.
13
technology
14
summaries that
15
condensed version of a book.
16
17
and
vocabulary
you
place in the
Potuto
First of all,
men
from one
was
did you do to help them
very intellectual
that
word
Professor
10
Their
a
women
these were
that
can
I work
was far greater than
Just basically
was
the essay
available,
get
that
using the
there
makes
are
it a
Just really go through dissecting what
it is that they needed to
do.
They understand
~nte~lectually.
18
it
19
difference between
20
disability
21
retardation.
22
is
think
I
a
not
student
a
that
with
student
23
above.
24
specifically with an I.Q.
25
level of
~any
the
a learning
Itlith
They are a student who are
is
mental
average or
of the students, I can remember one
second grade.
of 145
It
and a reading
doesn't take a lot
(
144
1
for them with the right guidance
2
understand what
3
have the patience and the time to sit
4
and guide
5
~... ord,
6
they need to do.
they need
to be
able to
to do as long as you
with them
them and dissect it word for word for
so they have a clear understanding of what
~1R.
7
One
LECHNER:
8
follow up Professor Potuto.
9
time
after
time,
the
after
cities
more question to
If
reading
Tale
did this
of Two
10
Cities, and
11
incorrectly, would you throw up your hands?
MS. MONK:
12
I
were
you
still identified
never threw my hands up,
13
but I also had to honor the student's ability to
14
walk away,
15
and take what they had and turn it
16
be for
17
in.
and they could walk away at any time
a failing
in.
It may
grade, but they would turn it
18
YiR.
LECHNER:
Did
you
of
your
ever
in your
own
thought
19
position
20
processes in any stage
21
student was working on, for any student?
include
any
of the
22
MS. MONK:
23
CHAlfu'ffiN THOMAS:
24
NS. POT(JTO:
25
product that the
Not to my knowledge.
I
Professor Potuto.
have just one question
over here for Mr. Battle, I think it is for you,
145
1
with regard to NCAA rules.
2
who
3
penmanship, would
4
the bad penmanship
5
work with that student on the project?
'''as
not
learning
that
~1R.
7
MS. POTUTO:
8
MR.
benefit.
disabled
a tutor
6
9
If you had a student
be able
the
ABELE:
could then
be
Why?
That
would be an extra
providing
that person.
11
them they \·lOuld not be able to.
12
to type out
tutor
10
I
with bad
I would say no.
ABELE:
We would
but
just think
MS. JENNINGS:
I
a
service to
that our answer to
am
curious
about a
13
background question.
14
the Academic
15
athletes
16
didnlt understand, and it is just a general one.
17
use
Center.
them?
I don't
You have computer labs in
Do most
of the student-
One
my questions,
understand
of
why
I
the students
18
aren't goir.g
19
their handwritten papers in whatever,
20
improper, and why they are not using things like
21
Spell Check and
22
during this process.
23
MR.
~n and using the computers
were being made.
25
lab.
Check
to
incorrect,
assist them
What am I missing?
MELENEY:
24
We have
Grammar
to type
We have
All
of those efforts
a 32-station computer
eight tutorial
rooms that had a
[&llH 146
1
computer in
2
being used consistently every day on the hour.
3
them.
So,
nearly 500
We ran
4
tutorial, so from 7:00
5
facility was full.
6
MS.
those
a.m.
JENNINGS:
computers were
sessions a week in
to
9:00
Did
it
serve
7
learning disabled
8
to a different office for assistance?
9
or were
MR. MELENEY:
For direct accommodation
to the classroom, they were to be sent
11
but
12
learning
13
student-athlete.
14
in-house
disabled
and
MS. JENNINGS:
15
Monk,
16
there
17
materials that any of
no
were
for
to SORe,
conducted
the
you are
reference
for
non-disabled
Is there a reason,
why the students
is
the
they redirected over
10
services
p.m. our
Dr.
talking about--
anywhere in any of the
your
students
ever used
18
that approach.
MS. MONK:
19
When I was working with the
20
student, they were assigned
21
of time,
22
was a two-hour session.
23
be something
24
their two-hour session with me.
25
it was
It
to me
for a period
usually an hour.
Sometimes it
So,
the process would
that we t'JOuld be working on during
was
an
individualized
session.
~47
1
They used
2
had lots of other tutors other than me.
3
they
4
disability, or a language
5
going to be assigned to me for a period of time,
6
and it was my
7
during that period of time.
had
8
9
the computer
a
So,
lab, they
writing
disability,
a
But if
reading
disability, they were
responsibility to
in
used -- they
work with them
saying that that would be part
of my work session
\"lith them.
If
I sent them
10
out to
11
lost the time that we needed in order to conduct
12
the
13
that we were going through at the time.
14
do it
tutoring
on their
session
MS. JENNINGS:
own, then we would have
or
the training session
But
if
I understand,
15
sometimes there
16
you gave them where a student would come in with
17
a draft of a paper written, and you would put it
are some examples where I think
l8
into the computer because it was
19
to read and easier for you to discuss with them.
20
It wasn't to type it up for them, it was to make
21
it easier for you to work with them.
Did
22
you
ever
easier for you
tell the students, you
23
know,
when you are coming in
tomorrow, when you
24
come
back
you go in and type
25
this up in the meantime, and then come
tomorrow,'
could
back and
I
1_
r:&llH
148
we will talk about it from there?
2
cIS. ,10NK:
Yes.
That did occur on a
3
day-to-day
4
information.
5
very good at doing
6
had worked
with over a period of, say!
7
four years,
they got very good with that.
8
9
basis
that
In fact,
on their USB.
11
tutoring session
12
and bolts of what it
13
accomplish.
16
l7
given
that
that.
The students
that I
three or
already in
to us
We could throw it on the computer
screen and use
15
were
toward the end, they got
They would bring it
10
14
they
the
time
we
had
in
our hour
to really get down to the nuts
was
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
they
were
trying to
Any other questions
by the Committee?
MR.
LECHNER:
Just
one
follow-up.
When you were helping the students in taking the
18
j~mble
19
screen!
20
right or how they would want to change
21
you got the product where the student wanted it,
22
did you download it to his
23
so he could use it in the future?
they
and
had
then
written
you
24
MS. MONK:
25
MS. POTUTO:
and
it
put
on the
vlould ask if it sounded
USB or
it, when
Thumb drives
Yes.
I want to get back to Ms.
I'
C&l1H
149
1
Thompson,
2
which ,;as the word edit in (a).
3
know from you or Mr. Didion, what do you contend
4
that she
did, not what editing is or isn't, but
5
what
you
6
information you rely to make that determination?
7
And
8
athletes
9
information?
do
did
10
to where
you
I
contend
MR. DIDION:
part of your question.
12
appears as it does.
13
talked
14
hand, and it
15
institution
16
during our interviews,
the
was
and
I looked
started
any
I
I
did
and
of
,;hose
student-
to
this
the first
That's why the paragraph
we
reviewed
information
information
at
on
the
will answer
When
then
on this,
would like to
regard
with
11
17
she
interview
yourself
about
really
that
it and
we had at
provided
by the
information we developed
it was primarily me.
this
and
believed that
18
what she had done was provided a service and had
19
not provided
20
Because of that I believed that it was --
21
MS.
any
content
POTUTO:
to
the individuals.
You are giving me your
22
conclusion.
23
contend that
24
and from whose information in the record that we
25
have that you drew that conclusion.
I want to know what it
she did
is that you
that constituted editing,
~&l1H
'-50
1
DIDION:
~lR.
What
I believed editing
2
was, was taking
3
athletes,
4
student-athletes to assist in putting together a
5
coherent paper,
6
thoughts or own ideas, but using the information
7
that the student-athletes had developed on their
8
own.
9
information
using
And
the
from
the student-
information
my
source
of
information
information
11
the institution and by Ms. Thompson.
13
the
not interjecting any of her own
10
12
from
from
interviews
MS. POTUTO:
Can
was
that were done by
you
tell
me \.hich
interviews, which student-athletes?
14
MS. THOMPSON:
15
bit
16
institution
17
five
of
background
Let me provide a little
with
initially
student-athletes
this.
When
the
reported that there were
that
reported
they had
18
received
19
questioned
20
with
21
happened, what was actually done?
or
typing
the
exactly
in
auditors,
22
The institution
23
needed
24
athletes.
25
Patuto,
to
re-interview
editing
the
assistance,
I
initial interviews
questioned exactly what
and I
agreed that we
some of those student-
In order to answer your question, f:
the
one
interview
that
I did, I was
::&~lE
151.
1
there prese~:
2
were concerned.
3
Smrt and I co~ducted that interview.
as
far
That
as
the 3tuden~-a~h~etes
was
Chuck
4
5
[Nas in tervi ewed
twice
the
by
6
So,
7
interview, it
8
the
9
information
institution,
as
well as
11
although --
12
as
was only
informatio~
10
far
that
that
was
my
well
as
presence
in the
with
I
Then
relying
am
on
is
reported by Dr. Monk, as
as well
MS. POTUTO:
as
Let
as
me try
and
this.
What
13
information did
14
decide that
15
as an extra benefit, and not editing an academic
16
conduct?
17
All
they give
you that
led you to
it constituted anything but editing
I
have
is conclusions here, and
pers~n
18
this
19
on and
20
But I
21
that they said.
22
somethi~g
said
MS.
are relying
else f:1ight tave said somet:ting.
som~body
have no
that you
idea wr.at
THOMPSON:
it is
As
you are saying
it
relates
23
to
said
24
specifically that
Dr. Monk
25
that my papers rl'lould
typed my papers "so
make better
sense."
That
[&llH
152
1
is the
2
the
3
concerned.
information that
typing
MS.
4
5
and
as
I relied
far
POTUTO:
as
the
And
tha t
on as far as
editing
is
~'ias
an
in
interview that the University did?
6
MS. THOMPSON:
7
~IS.
POTUTO:
And
I
to find
assume
you never
8
went back
9
meant by "SO it would make better sense"?
10
to try
Yes.
MS. THOMPSON:
the
No, I did not.
11
read
interview
12
institution provided me.
13
MR. PARK:
14
MS. POTUTO:
15
MR. PARK:
out from him what he
from
notes
I
just
what
the
Let me ask a question.
Sure.
And
then
I
16
back.
17
recording or transcription of that?
Interview notes,
will
pass it
I take it there was no
:-1S.
19
~s
20
lIi.
21
because
22
actual tape
23
I did listen to.
24
25
cnderstand~ng
my
fact,
recorded
I
did
instit~~ion
-- it
that those interviews were,
with
receive
recordi~g
~IR.
ihe
THOM?SON:
PARK:
fro~
~ve
the interview, which
are talking about
and you said that you read a memorandum of
'-&llE
153
1
an in.terview.
2
~IS.
THO~IPSON:
3
~{IR.
PARK:
4
~
~
am wondering whether the
interview r...,as recorded and transcribed.
MS. THOMPSON:
6
the
7
with -
8
second interview that !
9
did with
first
interview
1
did
11
interview with -
an
12
that
the institution did
recorded.
The
did as well as with -- I
PARK:
summary
There
of
that particular
is no
transcript in
our record for us to look at, is there?
HS. THONPSON:
There is no transcript,
but there is the interview summary.
l6
17
is my understanding
in fact,
was/
interview
~lR.
14
15
It
was actually recorded and I
10
13
am sorry.
:'1R.
this is
PARK:
a bone
Mr.
I have
Price
will
tell you
picked for a long time.
18
S01
19
as to
20
have the original
21
exactly what the man said?
what you are saying is we should believe you
what was
said in there, because we don't
of
a
transcription
22
MS. THOMPSON:
23
CHAIRMAN THOMAS:
24
25
to know
Yes, that is correct.
Does the institution
have any documentation on that?
MS. KARPINSKI:
We
do
not
have the
::::&llH
154
1
transcriptiG~
2
have
3
provide
4
But
5
do have summaries.
of
all
"-12
of
the tapes
here.
i~terviews
the
transcriptions
of
~lS.
then.
this,
8
institut~on
9
him so they would make better
that
We
said
to the
Dr. Monk typed some papers for
10
paLticipated in
11
that right, or not?
12
11S.
Let me go back to whe L2 I
POTUTO:
was on
15
and could
those tapes to you.
7
14
taped
do not have a transcription with
6
13
We certainly
sense.
You then
a second interview with him, is
~lS.
THONPSON:
NS.
POTUTO:
NQt
with
but with
all
we
have
So,
Okay.
is
to
say
II
with
to make
16
better sense", but you never went back to try to
17
find out what that
meant,
what
her assistance
18
was?
19
MS. TH8MPSON:
20
~lS
21
~s
Okay.
POTUTO:
CQrrect.
':'hen
where we don't have transcripts,
22
do
23
intervie~1?
you
24
2S
.
That
sa.y
~'IS.
the
first
tha.t
THOMPSON:
interview,
said
I
but
was
from
in
r.ot
tHe
get t:)
ap-d what
the
first
present at
the interview
I' I'
II
155
notes
2
said that
Dr. Monk
typed two papers
for him.
3
iYIS .
4
nothing abol1t
5
the typing?
for
there is
editing assistance,
6
MS. THOMPSON:
7
MS.
student-athlete,
9
forgotten,
it is purely
Yes.
POTUTO:
8
10
So
POTUTO :
Now,
whose
there is a third
name
have
I
What did
MS.
say?
said that Dr.
THO~lPSON:
11
Honk typed papers for him because he
12
typist, and
during
13
14
IS 16
17
Monk
provided
now
said
a slow
that
the 2006-2007
papers.
f,.,,3S
acadenic year, Dr.
So,
as it relates to
, it was typing papers as well.
MS. POTUTO:
three students
All
right.
So for the
',."ho are editing, what we have is
18
t"o who were for typing
19
said she
20
sense, but we have
21
what "that student meant by that phrase?
no
more
MS. THOMPSON:
23
~IS.
the
25
other
and
a
third who
typed papers so they would make better
22
24
only
students
has
with
as to
No, no.
All right.
POTUTO:
University
information
no
other
[
!
[
,
And I assume
intervievJs with
whom Dr. Monk worked, who
I
-r 1 :00
1
talked about the
2
provided,
3
interviews where they talked
4
assistar:ce that 'Nas provided?
or
~IS.
5
kind
an
I
of
assiscance
wrong?
KARPINSKI:
liJe
Do you have other
about the
and intervi.e'",red
7
to try
8
provided to them.
On
9
student was
told by Dr.
two weeks ago
to get to the bottom of exactly what she
he was
example
provided
Mo~k
by a
to make an
attempt to write half the paper on his own.
'IS. THONPSON:
11
12
Identify him.
13
MS.
14
several athletes
kir.d of
I went back
do.
6
10
that ste
Who
is
KARPINSKI:
was told if the paper was to
that student?
So,
be a six-page
15
paper on
a certain subject, he had to arrive in
16
her office having attempted at least half of the
17
pa~er.
So, he said he would make sure he walked
I
,
I 18
II
in there with three pages written.
Then he would hand
19
that to
Dr.
~lonk,
I' 20
either
21
drive, and they
would
22
that three-page
paper when
23
six-page paper.
That is one example.
24
25
in
handwritten
MS. POTUTO:
form or through his USB
sit
But
there
together and
he left
would be a
I .
I
JI
that doesn't really
identify whether I am getting three pages to six
II
I
I
157
It was
appropriate tutorial assistance
1
pages.
2
or it crossed the line.
Do you
3
have any information from that
4
student-athlete as to how
5
three to six pages?
MS. KARPINSKI:
6
that paper
He
indicated -- what
7
he said to me is we wrote it together.
8
I
9
back and forth.
left
there
together
believing
Well, he
and
grew from
I think
that it was,
just said
I guess,
they wrote
10
it
not really able to articulate
11
any more specifically how the paper grew.
MS. POTUTO:
12
13
interviewed
14
give
15
regard to
16
typing?
17
from her
you
several
any
more
All right.
others.
concrete
You said you
Did any of them
particulars with
the kind of assistance independent of
He said
when you
he also
got typing assistance
went back
two weeks ago, or
18
rca f
{"lS. KAHPINSKI:
20
office,
21
turned in.
I
a
six-page
:1S. POTU TO :
23
I1S. KARPINSKI:
25 I
had
22
24
1-
he
vJell
"'ten he left her
paper ready to be
She did not type for him?
She
him.
MS. POTUTO:
f
Okay.
did not
type for
C&llP. ~S8
Kl~RPINSKI
[viS.
:
is
/'
2
another student that
3
said
4
this time he indicated
5
typed.
he
went
6
in
I
re-interviet-led.
there and he had his paper--
he always
had his paper
He did not bring his USB drive, but he
7
always brought it typed.
8
marks
9
recommendations
10
his
on
paper
or
And
and
thoughts
she
r
would make
corrections
and
of
how
he could
I think his exact words
~ere
she would
I
improve his paper.
11
12
fix
13
corrections and turn his paper in.
things,
14
15
I
and
CHAIRHAN
he
would
THOMAS:
then
That
make
those
'I
is
'j,
?
16
MS. KARPINSKI:
17
CHAIRl'1..z\N THOMAS:
Correct.
f'I..nything further?
J I
I~S.
KARP~NSKI:
V-J3.S
I~ ) 19
another student I interviewed, and his was -- he
20
indicated that
21
believe his
22
in ttere with, and --
23
MS. POTOTO:
24
MS. KARPINSKI:
25
I, II
i,
! I
he could
he
lost
was mostly
his
USB
drive,
so I
written, that te walked
Handwritten, do you mean?
f.ar.dwritten, because
not transfer it back and forth because
IB
MS.
was
I'.ARPINSKI:
19
another student I interviewed, and his was -- he
20
indicated that
21
believe his
22
in there with, and
was
he
lost
rnost~y
MS. POTUTO:
24
MS. KARPINSKI:
he could
USB
drive,
so I
written, that he walked
23
25
his
Handwritten, do you mean?
Har.dwritten, because
not transfer it back and forth because
':::'&:ilH
159
he didn't have a USB drive.
2
from
3
paper to be turned ip-.
that
4
was
wr..en
any particulars
6
interviews taped?
),
But again you
besides the
MS. KARPINSKI:
8
MS. POTUTO:
any
don't have
fact -- were these
(
7
9
my impression
he left he had a fi.nished
MS. POTUTO:
5
So,
Okay.
as
particulars
Yes, they were.
to
But you don't have
what
it
was,
10
assistance was?
11
that it
12
as to what the assistance was or wasn't?
was done
MS.
13
comments
You said you
that
had an impression
wr..en he left.
KARPINSKI:
the
the
Yes,
No particulars
the
kind
of
student-athletes made to me
was --
:6
MS. PC'I'UTO:
17
MS. KARPINSKI:
or somebody else?
I
would say
all focr
18
that I interviewed were very similar in that she
19
would take their --
20
21
MS.
interviews that
22
POTUTO:
Well,
are
T
23
what
24
where it is coming from and when.
25
are
re-
you are talking about, -
, and so forth,
you
those
talk~ng
MS. KARPINSKI:
about?
Right.
guess?
Is that
I want to kr.ow
These student-
160
athletes
origi~ally
were
interviewed
by
the
~
took
2
auditcrs before I arrived on campus.
3
those auditors' interviews and then went back to
4
the student-athletes and said, I'Okay.
5
understand
6
about what Dr. Monk provided to
7
NS. POTUTO:
8
exactly
weeks ago, you
what
10
MS. POivTO:
and I have three
~2
and
Tell me
yOU,ll
Thi.s was two
na~es
Correct.
You said there were four,
so
far:
Who is the fourth? MS. KARPINSKI:
l3
I
14
three two weeks ago.
The
15
makes
is
17
I need t
sa~d?
~1
16
meant.
All right.
MS. KARPINSKI:
9
you
So,
up
the
fourth
was
apologize.
other
It was
student that
re-interviewed
last
fall related to hi.s receiving typir.g services.
I
=-61
1
~S.
2
1-1r.
3
ir.terviews that you just
4
did two weeks ago?
Hargrove
r.ave
~~r.
':'her.
POTUTO:
a
copy
Hargrove,
does
these
three
of
that you
talked about
A~l
MS. KARPINSKI:
of our interviews
6
were made available at Florida State.
7
custodial site
8
not there yet, no.
for those.
had a
We
Those last three are
1'
i MS.
9
POTU~O:
So, he hasn't
heard them \ I
10
or seer.
them?
All right.
up one little matter,
and
I just want to clear it
happens
a while
and it was Mr. Hargrove with regard to, was
'-2
ago,
13
it,
14
where he
15
first
that
said that
interview
you were
talking about
the characterization of the
didn't
jive
with
what
the
I' \
16
student-athlete
17
interview?
said
on
th2 tape of the first
18
19
iYIS .
POTU':'O :
20
consistent.
21
Does
22
actually said?
l
anybody
23
l1S.
24
available at
25
quotations
They
both
had
been
don't want to leave this hanging.
have
what
KARPINSKI:
the custodial
that
took
the
student-athlete
The
tape again was
site.
from
the
I just have
tape in my
162
nates.
2
He said that
Dr.
i.Vlonk
\vould
with his papers.
"He
3
couldn't
type
very
fast so she
4
would help with typing or anything
5
needed help
6
paper for him she typed his thoughts.
7
it up.
8
auditors on May 30,
with.
She never
else that he
a~tually
wrote his
She wrote
(
That was in his first interview by the
II
MR.
9
10
hel.p him
times.
107.
was interviewed three
S~R::
During the
first one,
in. IYlay,
'07,
he
111
reported what Stacey said,
12
with papers by typing because he was slow at it.
13
It was always his thoughts, but she typed them.
14
that she
Then Minnix goes back
fall
and
he
generally,
as
to
denied what he reported earlier on.
17
third
that
him
in the
we understand it,
16
interview
helped him
happened
It
recently
is the
with
I
18
Joyce and I when he
19
saying
20
assistance.
no,
that
started
he
down
didn't
the
path of
receive
any
:
21
Joyce confronts him, I guess, and says
22
you
23
with the auditor.
24
said,
25
first time."
said
this
"Well,
earlier
in the first interview
Then it is my recollection he
I will go with whatever I said the
[&llE 163
1
We said,
"We don't '!lant you to go witr.
2
that.
J
He said,
4
time," which was during the auditor's interviefll.
We want your recollection at this point."
5
lIT
will go with
1-1S •
POTUTO :
6
disagree
7
interviews one,
8
9
10
with
what
MR.
that I
had,
specifically
11
what I
Hr.
was
just
HARGROVE:
reported
for
over
this
specific
representative
13
ago, two
from
weeks
as to
ago,
my
office
twice to
people.
I went a month or so ago, and I
12
do you
The only information
~vent
I
look
Hargrove,
three, and what was said?
two,
and
said the first
sent a
again ten days
specifically
looking for
14
The
16
documents as
17
first
reason
because
'Has
it relates
and
to
I
had
two
The
it is attached in my
is
supplemental response that
19
thought it
20
but somehow there was
21
recording.
22
yo~
folks
have.
I
was odd that he refused to be taped,
So
I
ItJent
a
tape
or
back.
there
I
was a
sent
a
23
representative from my office again to make sure
24
that I
2S
didn I t miss it.
that
::::
have,
~vhat
you have from
you
have
what
I have
164
atta.::::hed
as
2
I
have
2
Respor.se, and
3
provided
4
was submitted on
5
what I have.
7
'lias
8
to whether
9
just heard
11
also
me,
my
Supp~erner.tal
what
Ms. Thompson
the reinstatement letter that
behalf.
MS. POTUTQ:
6
10
to
to
Exhibit
,where
Bet I
you had
tho~ght
That's
you said it
the disagreement as
what was reported was accurate.
t~em
describe
the
You
first interview,
the secop.d interview and the third interview.
That is
what I war.ted to get ba::::k to,
12
to find out if you have
13
memory or ip.forrnation as to the three intervie',l}s
14
is different from what He just heard.
a different
-- if your
I '
15
~lR.
recollect~on
17
HARGROVE:
is
Substantively,
r:e.
My
that it was Mr. Smrt that asked
the question, it was not Ms. Thompson.
I could
I
18
be mistaken on that.
19
is ~lr. Surt that
20
question was
21
was saying was inconsistent.
22
My recollection
asked
the
q'.1estior.,
indicated to
As
was
.L
15
that it
and the
that what he
lister.ing
to
the
ty/Q
23
interviews, I didn't see the inconsistency based
24
on
25
assertion,
what
kne'N
t~e
Dr.
~lon k
had
question contained
said.
The
within it, a
-~&llH
165
1
version
that
what
he
2
inconsistent
3
wasn't hearing it that
4
those two interviews,
5
MS. POTUTO:
(,;,lith
was
what
he
way.
saying
now
r,.Jas
had said before,
So,
I
-.-
have heard
yes.
Now I am really confused.
thought I heard Ms. Karpinski say in the first
6
I
7
interview he
8
second interview he told
9
the third
said she
typed the paper, and the
Mr. Minnix
interview somebody
said to him,
10
you said in an earlier interview
11
a paper."
He said,
12
I stand on it."
14
I don't know where --
So,
you \.Jill
MR. HARGROVE:
l6
off.
17
cases
what
that she typed
I
have to
I am sorry.
I heard your question.
where
"But
"If that is what I said, then
13
15
no, and in
help me.
I cut you
This is one of the
described
in
my opening
18
statement was troublesome.
19
asked the question exactly what do you mean when
20
you say typed the paper?
21
answer to that question.
22
I know
I
knew the
what that answer is.
It is as
23
what Dr. Monk described.
24
that
25
question exactly what do
question.
I would like to have
I
Because
So,
still
I wanted
want
to
ask
to ask
that
you mean specifically?
-'=&llH
166
1
And
2
confident, would lead
3
I want
4
LhaL quesLion before I came here today.
the
ar.S;"ler
to know.
5
to
that
~IR.
8
MS. POTUTO:
HARGROVE:
it before
11
tried to interview the
12
the question.
Did you try
to inLerview
Not yet.
Well,
Now,
14
to
15
La do is to get --
co~pel
you wanted to get
You wanted
to have
you came here today, and you have not
people who
donlt have a method
L
him to talk to me.
MR.
simply ask him?
could answer
I am really perplexed.
MR. H.ZIRGROVE:
13
l7
additional questions.
the answer to the ques tion.
10
16
am very
?
7
9
to
I
I wanted to know the answer to
MS. POTUTO:
6
question,
LECHNER:
What I
Excuse
me.
have tried
Did you
18
19
MR. IiARGROVE:
could track
him down and ask him.
20
21
- suppose I
MR.
LECHNER:
No,
T
as ked did you
simply ask whether he would talk to you?
22
MR. HARGROVE:
23
CHAIRr-JAN THOMAS:
24
We have
25
l-(a).
No.
Any other questions?
had some exhaustive conversations about
Are there
any other
comments on i-(a)?
C&~lH
167
Can we close out on l-(a)
2
ar-d take a lunch break
and corne back and continue?
Any
3
other
questions
on
1-(al?
If
4
there are no questions, we will recess for lunch
5
and come back at 1:00 o'clock.
6
(NOON RECESS. l
We
CHAlfu'IAN THOMAS:
7
proceedings
Thank you.
will begin with
Professor Potuto will
8
the
here.
9
have one question before
we move
10
that is after Professor Patuto
11
MS. POTUTO:
~'Je
to l-(b), and
will move on.
This is really quick, and
I
guess
it
would
be to
12
it
13
Professor Monk
14
the Case Summary,
15
about eight lines down before that first bullet,
16
"Monk reported that
17
and editing accommodations.
is
just
one.
or Ms. Thompson.
there is a
she
statement under 1,
provided
II
On Page 1-6 of
these typing
i
I
,
18
I
just
looked
at
the
part
of the
19
November 7th interview that you have here in the
20
Case Summary.
21
was her word or your word.
22
I
just wondered whether editing
MS. THOMPSON:
I believe, if
23
the
24
probably was my word to be honest.
25
interview
on
November
MS. POTUTO:
7,
Thank you.
2007,
I recall
editing
: . 68
C::EAIRL\L\N
2
~-
(b).
THO~IAS:
Okay.
Let'
5
move to
The staff.
3
CHAI&"Ll\N
THOYIAS:
As
it relates to
4
Sl1bparagraph
5
provisior.s
6
provided correct answers for a Sports Psychology
7
quiz
8
9
(b) ,
of
Dr.
violated
iYlon k
unethical
conduct
when
the
she
to
'. and
requested
anST.oJers oP.to
to
an online
quiz form
enter those
on behalf of
10
11
12
Regarding
13
institution and
14
substantial
15
facts.
16
fraudulent a=t,
17
mistake.
Dr.
the
agreement
~!onk
Subparagraph
enforcemer.t
as
it
believes she
the
(b) ,
staff
relates
did not
are in
to
the
commi t a
but she believes that she made a
18
Therefore,
there is one issue for this
19
Committee
20
Subparagraph (b).
21
to a level of unethical conduct as it relates to
22
academic fraud as set forth in Subparagraph (b)?
23
to
consider
Did
as
it
Dr. Monk's
Regarding this
issue,
relates
to
actions rise
the enforcement
24
staff
committed
academic
25
fraud and that her actions rose to the
level of
believes
that
Monk
c8
give us
her position
response from
20
21
on this.
Dr. Monk,
As
- read the
that she is saying that
had the answers and she gave answers to
22
Maybe
23
'was
24
information
25
Monk.
an
issue
I
misread
between
reported
by
said
he
that.
the
I thought it
J:"eliability
versus
did
not
of
Dr.
develop any
C&llH 178
answers for that, and that he knew notting about
2
this until after the fact.
3
thought
~le
seemed credible
4
because it was unrealistic for an athlete to say
5
he didn't
6
provide them.
7
that the allegation should be found as alleged.
So,
based upon
8
CHAIR~N
9
Dr. Monk or
10
if he,
provide answers
THO,ffiS:
Okay.
Dr.
Thank you.
Hargrove,
MR.
HARGROVE:
which one
It will be Dr.
12
have outlined the response in my
13
don I t
14
I am sure.
have
anything to add.
So,
NS.
have stated
~/lonk.
I
response ar.d I
She can add to it,
feel free to do so.
CHAI~~ffiN
17
that we thought
wants to speak?
11
16
in fact, did
~IONK:
THOMAS;
The
Dr. Monk.
facts
are
there.
those facts in every interview, and
18
they have not wavered.
19
did make a mistake.
20
was a mistake that I
21
back, but it was a mistake that I made.
22
23
CHAIRMAN
there.
I did not commit fraud.
wish
THOMAS:
I
could
Thank
I
It
have taken
you.
Any
questions?
24
25
The facts are
"1S. POTUTO:
staff,
actually.
Yes.
I
take
Mine
is
of the
it in alleging the
[&l~H
171
1
facts in
2
athletes and not Professor Monk's description of
3
what occurred?
(b) ,
you
believe
4
MS. THONPSON:
5
NS. POTUTO:
6
That's correct.
Why
MR. DIDION:
8
I had to give you an
9
would
be
wasn't
she charged
that
it
Ms. Potuto, honestly,
anstver to
if
that, my answer
didn't occur to me that she
should be.
11
12
the student-
with 10.1-(d)?
7
10
that
NS. POTUTO:
Now that it
has occurred
to you, should it have been charged?
13
MR. DIDION:
Yes,
14
~IS.
POTUTO:
Any other questions?
15
~lR.
PARK:
I
I do believe so.
have one.
16
have looked at Exhibit 1-9 to
17
response,
which
is
what
Dr. Monk,
I
the institution's
I understand to be a
18
test sr.eet that 'tIas s:..:bmitted, or
:9
in
20
name.
makirrg
the
onlirre submissior. in
21
Have you got that?
22
MS. MONK:
Yes, sir.
23
MR. PARK:
All right.
24
at the
25
in, were the answers
time that
that was used
My question is
you tDld
filled in
to send that
by
More Documents from "The Ledger"
Gilleo Affidavit
April 2020 17
Unreported Burglary Led To Idaho Avenue Shooting
April 2020 13
Robert Farley: Statement #1
May 2020 18
Polk County Annual Report 2008
December 2019 36
Guerin Arrest Affidavit
May 2020 16