Famu should look at some hard trues about themselves and be honest!


bluedog

"Leader of Kings"
After reading several posters remarks (famu & others) I decided to do what I do best and that is just be straight forward and blunt about Famu situation.

While many may think that what the meac handed down was harsh I totally disagree, while a few think that this incident was done unwillingly, again I'm of the same opinion, and for the few famuians that somehow blames the meac for this, "SHAME,SHAME,SHAME on you."

The hard truth of the matter is the meac could have taken away "and" reduce scholarships.They did neither.But don't look for the Ncaa to be so lenient.

Lets be honest here, the Ncaa has all the evidence and grounds to hit famu with a lack of institutional control. They have done this is the past for far less fractions in lesser (minor) sports.

So as I thought about this situation more and after talking to a friend about it who brought this to my attention and debating over it , I had to come to this hard realization that more then likely this will be their sentence.
 
I believe that only having to forfiet games played during the playing of ineligible players and having to return the money made from the conference during these same times is not major at all. That is a slap on the wrist for the number of infractions that the athletic department at FAMU made. The NCAA will have to reduce scholarships or even worse. This was not one sport. It was almost the whole department. Firings should have taken place before they released these infractions. Someone(s) have to be the fall guy(s) or you look like you did nothing to fix the problems.

Almost 200 infractions... :smh:
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
Examples:

DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY (ILLINOIS) PLACED ON PROBATION FOR VIOLATIONS IN MEN'S TENNIS AND LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL



INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions has placed Dominican University (Illinois) on probation for two years for violations in the men's tennis program, including a lack of institutional control. The committee also found that the university's former head tennis coach violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct, and it imposed a five-year show cause order on him for permitting an ineligible student-athlete to practice and compete under an assumed name.

The case centers around violations of bylaws concerning ineligible competition, unethical conduct and institutional control.

This was the university's first major infractions case.

The committee found that the head men's and women's tennis coach at the university knowingly allowed a student-athlete to compete while ineligible during the entire 2002-03 academic year. The head coach also allowed the student-athlete to compete under an assumed name, specifically the name of an injured student-athlete who was sitting out the season. The ineligible student-athlete won the 2003 Northern Illinois-Iowa Conference men's tennis tournament championships in singles and was on the doubles team that also won the championship.

The director of athletics and the senior woman administrator reported that they each had had individual conversations with the head coach prior to spring 2003 indicating that the student-athlete was not eligible; however, the institution did not ensure that the student-athlete did not compete. The committee noted that, "attendance at any of the men's tennis contests by the university's athletics administrators would have detected the violation."

The university athletics administration became aware of the violation when a former student-athlete informed the associate director of athletics April 29, 2003, several days after the conclusion of the conference tournament. The university immediately reported the violation to the NCAA.

The committee found that there was a failure to exert appropriate institutional control and monitoring in the conduct and administration of the men's tennis program in that the institution:

Failed to ensure that the student-athlete did not practice or represent the institution in intercollegiate men's tennis competition after determining that he was not eligible; and

Did not have appropriate procedures in place to monitor either the head coach or the men's tennis program.

The committee noted that in its view, "the fact that student-athlete 1 was able to practice and compete for the entire 2003 season without detection from the athletics administration demonstrated a clear lack of institutional control."

The committee also found that the head coach violated the principles of ethical conduct with his knowing effort to operate the university's men's tennis program contrary to NCAA rules. The head coach admitted that he arranged for the student-athlete to represent the institution in intercollegiate athletics competition knowing that the student-athlete was ineligible and that the student-athlete competed under another student-athlete's name. Associated documentation, testimony from members of the men's tennis team and other information further supported this conclusion.

In determining appropriate penalties, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions, and it also took into account the institution's recent acceptance into the NCAA as a Division III member. [Dominican University (Illinois) became a full member of Division III beginning with the 2002-03 academic year after completion of the NCAA's provisional membership process.]

The following penalties were imposed by the committee or were self-imposed by the university and adopted by the committee. Those penalties that were self-imposed by the university are so noted.

Public reprimand and censure.

Two years of probation beginning June 16, 2004, and ending June 15, 2006.

All contests in which the ineligible student-athlete participated were vacated. (Self-imposed by the university.)

The university's records regarding men's tennis as well as the record of the former head coach will be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records and will be so recorded in all publications in which men's tennis records are reported, including university and NCAA publications and archives.

The institution's men's tennis team shall end its 2004-05 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including the conference championship tournament, following that season. During the 2004-05 academic year, the men's tennis team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limitation in the number of tennis contests that are provided in Bylaw 17.25.5.3, regarding preseason and postseason contests and other exceptions to the maximum number of contest limitations.

The university terminated the employment of the head tennis coach April 30, 2003, upon discovering the violation.

If the head coach had still been employed in athletics at the institution, the university would have been required to show cause, in accordance with Bylaw 19.5.2.2-(1), why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him.

The former head tennis coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation in this case, he is subject to a show-cause order. If he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution in any division during the period of time beginning with the release of this report (June 16, 2004) and concluding June 15, 2009, he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures, which could limit the coach's athletically related duties at the new institution during the designated five-year period.

Within 30 days of receipt of this report, the institution's chief executive officer shall contact the NCAA's membership services staff in writing and formally request a compliance review.

The committee required that, during the probationary period, the university shall develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. The university also is required to submit, to the director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions, a preliminary report that sets forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program. The institution also shall institute a policy in which it ensures that all squad lists are confirmed for accuracy by an athletics administrator other than the coach for the respective sport. The institution also must file annual compliance reports indicating progress made with the program and placing particular emphasis on NCAA legislation relating to monitoring of student-athletes' eligibility, certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition, and institutional control of the athletics program. The report also must include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties imposed and adopted by the committee. At the end of the probationary period, the university's president will provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Dominican University (Illinois) is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3, concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, June 16, 2004.

The members of the NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Jone Dowd, committee chair and senior woman administrator, Catholic University; Kenneth Magarian, athletics director, Westfield State College; Branwen Smith-King, senior woman administrator, Tufts University; and Gerald Young, associate athletics director, Carleton College.
 
GARDNER-WEBB UNIVERSITY PLACED ON PROBATION FOR LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL



INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed Gardner-Webb University on probation for three years for multiple violations, including a lack of institutional control. The case centers around violations of bylaws concerning recruiting, academic eligibility, extra benefits, ethical conduct and institutional control.

This was the university's first major infractions case.

The committee found that the institution's former president had provided a men's basketball student-athlete with an extra benefit and also violated the principles of institutional control. The former president, at the request of the athletics director, directed the university registrar to recalculate the student-athlete's grade-point-average in a manner contrary to institutional practice in an effort to make the student-athlete academically eligible for the 2000-01 academic year. (The student-athlete had received a failing grade in a course because he had been found to have copied from another student's paper on the course's final exam.) The former president also failed to consult with appropriate university personnel before making a decision that circumvented the university's eligibility certification procedures.

The committee also found that, during the period beginning with the 2000-01 academic year and concluding with the 2002-03 academic year, several student-athletes in five sports: baseball, men's basketball, women's cross country and women's track practiced, and in some cases competed, and received athletically financial aid while ineligible.

The committee also found that, during the 1999-00 through 2002-03 academic years, the institution failed to correctly certify the eligibility of any of its 33 international student-athletes during a four-year period because it failed to require international student-athletes to complete the General Amateurism and Eligibility Form for International Student-Athletes. As a result, 33 student-athletes in the sports of men's golf, women's golf, men's soccer, women's soccer, men's basketball, women's basketball, softball, indoor and outdoor track, and men's and women's tennis practiced and/or participated while ineligible. The committee concluded that this was a major violation because it was not isolated and it provided more than a minimum competitive advantage.

The committee also found that during the 2002 fall semester, the institution failed to follow its own procedures in documenting the designation of degree programs for 14 student-athletes entering their third year of enrollment. The committee noted that this violation was neither inadvertent nor isolated and provided more than a minimal competitive advantage. The committee further noted that the compliance director discovered in early October that the student-athletes had not completed the university's paperwork process, but it was not until October 15, when the director of athletics was alerted to the problem, that the university withheld the student-athletes from competition.

The committee found that the university's former head women's basketball coach purchased a one-way airline ticket from Krakow, Poland, to Charlotte, North Carolina, for a former women's basketball prospective student-athlete. Additionally, the committee found that the head women's basketball coach violated NCAA bylaws related to ethical conduct by his involvement in this violation.

The committee also found that the institution had committed secondary violations by exceeding the maximum financial aid equivalency limits in the sports of baseball, men's soccer and men's tennis during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic years.

The committee ultimately found that there was a lack of institutional control and lack of monitoring of the institution's athletics program because the institution:

Failed to possess adequate compliance and monitoring activities to prevent the violations listed above;

Did not employ a compliance coordinator during 2000-01 while the university was in transition from NCAA Division II to Division I status;

Did not hire an experienced compliance coordinator;

Failed to apply junior-college transfer regulations;

Failed to correctly apply financial aid legislation;

Failed to document the designation of degree programs;

Did not require international student-athletes to complete NCAA-mandated paperwork;

Failed to correctly certify the initial eligibility of three student-athletes; and

Failed to monitor the satisfactory progress of a women's cross-country student-athlete.

The committee noted that all of the failures resulted in numerous student-athletes participating while ineligible during the 1999-00 through 2002-03 academic years. The committee also concluded that the institution's former president violated NCAA legislation relating to institutional control in that he did not ensure that all aspects of the athletics program were compliant with NCAA and institutional policies when he arranged for a student-athlete to be certified in a manner that was contrary to institutional policy.

The committee found that many of the violations were directly attributable to the institution being ill-prepared for a move to Division I and the accompanying complex requirements of Division I membership. "The committee believes that this case should serve as a warning to institutions making the move to Division I that there must be a heightened sense of awareness with respect to compliance during the period of transition and such institutions need to take deliberate steps to prepare for the elevation to Division I status."

The committee also noted that this case, and the previous one (St. Bonaventure University), announced "are two examples where university presidents asserted their influence and made improper decisions on issues relating to student-athletes and academics. In both instances, the presidents ultimately left office, at least in part, because their actions resulted in NCAA violations. Both later expressed regret for what they had done. Once again, the committee believes this case and the St. Bonaventure case should serve as cautionary lessons for institutional chief executive officers."

In determining appropriate penalties, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The following penalties were imposed by the committee or were self-imposed by the university adopted by the committee. Those penalties that were self-imposed by the university are so noted.

Public reprimand and censure.

Three years of probation beginning March 4, 2004, and ending March 3, 2007. (The institution had proposed a two-year period of probation.)

All contests in which the aforementioned men's basketball student-athlete participated during the 2000-01 academic year shall be vacated. Further, the university's records regarding men's basketball, as well as the record of the head men's basketball coach, shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records and so recorded in all publications in which men's basketball records for the 2000-01 season are reported, including media guides, Atlantic Sun Conference publications, recruiting material and university and NCAA archives. (The university voluntarily vacated the 2001 National Christian College Athletic Association championship, including the removal of banners and signage.)

The institution's men's basketball team shall end its 2003-04 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including a foreign tour, at the conclusion of this season. Further, during the 2004-05 academic year, the men's basketball team also is prohibited from taking advantage of the exceptions to the limitation on the number of basketball contests provided in NCAA Bylaws 17.5.3.1, 17.5.5.1, 17.5.5.2 and 17.5.5.3 for preseason contests. If the institution has any existing commitments to participate in contests under these exceptions, it may seek permission from the committee to defer application of this portion of the penalty until the 2005-06 academic year.

The number of total athletically related financial aid awards in men's and women's basketball shall be reduced by one for both the 2004-05 and 2005-06 academic years. This limits the women's basketball team to no more than 14 grants for both of those years, and the men's basketball team to no more than 12 grants for those years. (The university self-imposed a one-grant reduction for the men's and women's basketball teams during the 2004-05 academic year only.)

As a result of exceeding maximum financial aid equivalency limits, a secondary violation, the university reduced the permissible numbers of equivalency grants by twice the amount by which the equivalency limits were exceeded in the sports of men's soccer, baseball and men's tennis. (Self-imposed by the university.)

The number of official paid visits in both men's and women's basketball will be limited to no more than nine for the 2004-05 academic year. (The university had self-imposed a reduction of two visits for only the women's program for the current academic year.)

The former head women's basketball coach resigned at the request of the institution, effective June 30, 2002.

The former head women's basketball coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation in this case, he is subject to a show-cause order. If he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the period of time beginning with the release of this report (March 4, 2004) and concluding June 29, 2004, (two years after his release from the university), he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures, which could limit the coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.

The former university president submitted his resignation to the university's board of trustees October 12, 2002, in part because of his involvement with the violations regarding the men's basketball student-athlete.

The former assistant director of athletics for compliance was issued letters of reprimand by the university for his involvement in the violations. (Self-imposed by the university.)

The former head women's track and field coach was issued a letter of reprimand for his involvement in a violation. (Self-imposed by the university.)

The faculty athletics representative and the director of athletics each received letters of admonishment for their involvement in a violation. (Self-imposed by the university.)

Since this case involved violations of NCAA legislation relating to academics, this report will be forwarded to the appropriate regional academic accrediting agency by the NCAA's president as provided in NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.7.

Within 30 days of receipt of this report, the institution's chief executive officer shall contact the NCAA's membership services staff in writing and formally request a compliance review.

The committee required that, during the probationary period, the university shall continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. The university also is required to submit, to the director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions, a preliminary report that sets forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program. The institution also must file annual compliance reports indicating progress made with the program, placing particular emphasis on NCAA legislation relating to certification of eligibility, institutional control of the athletics program and the university's efforts to establish a viable compliance program. The report also must include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties imposed and adopted by the committee. At the end of the probationary period, the university's president will provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Gardner-Webb University is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3, concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, March 4, 2004.

The members of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case were: Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Paul T. Dee, director of athletics at the University of Miami (Florida); Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; Andrea L. Myers, director of athletics at Indiana State University; James Park Jr., attorney, Lexington, Kentucky; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law and faculty athletics representative at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Eugene D. Smith, director of athletics at Arizona State University.


Note link below:

Click Rules & Eligibility on the left then under NCAA Rules and Eligibility click Enforcement / Infractions. Finally at the bottom of the page click Infractions news releases.

Infractions news releases
 
Bluedog,

The ultimate question will come around the NCAA decision on whether to band them from post season participation and if so, how long.
 
FAMU faces penalties

University to be stripped of 11 titles and fined, is considering an appeal to the MEAC

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/sports/9103131.htm

By Heath A. Smith
DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER

The Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference plans to strip Florida A&M University of 11 conference championships, including its 2000 and 2001 football titles, as part of the school's penance for committing 196 NCAA infractions.

The MEAC also wants FAMU to reimburse the conference for revenue the school received for winning All-Sports trophies in 2000 and 2001, totaling $100,000, according to school officials. The trophies are awarded to the schools that have the best finishes in conference play.

This comes at a time when the athletic department is already in the midst of a $700,000 budget deficit.


FAMU President Fred Gainous said the school was looking into a possible appeal of the conference's decision.

MEAC Commissioner Dennis Thomas listed the penalties in a June 29 letter he wrote to Joseph Ramsey II, FAMU special assistant to the president for athletics.

The letter was a response to FAMU's self-report to the NCAA listing the violations and suggested self-imposed penalties. The NCAA sets and enforces athletics policies for its members, which include about 1,200 colleges, universities, athletic conferences and sports organizations.

The violations involved the participation of athletes who should have been ruled academically ineligible. Most of the ineligibility issues had to do with the NCAA's rules regarding academic and graduation progress of athletes.

The university was first contacted about potential problems in September 2002 after several student-athletes expressed concern to the NCAA over eligibility certification and the disbursement of financial aid.

The initial inquiry eventually led to a two-year investigation by the NCAA into the athletic department's eligibility procedures.

Thomas would not discuss any details about the conference's ruling. FAMU officials also were quiet about the decision.

"I can't comment until we get a full ruling from the NCAA," Ramsey said. "Everything is premature at this point."

FAMU is also awaiting Monday's ruling from the NCAA's Infractions Committee. Ramsey could find out then whether the NCAA will accept the school's self-imposed infractions or hand down stiffer penalties. The conference's penalties are not connected to any decision the NCAA makes.

Among the championships the MEAC plans to strip is FAMU's 1999 conference volleyball title. FAMU head volleyball coach Tony Trifonov said Wednesday he would accept the loss if the violations are accurate but urged school officials to appeal the penalties.

is was an administrative error," Trifonov said. "These were not intentional violations."

Sen. Al Lawson Jr., who has recently been serving as interim executive director for the school's boosters, thinks stripping his alma mater of its conference championships is overkill.

don't think the MEAC is handling this the right way," Lawson said. "You can't take rings from guys that already have them."

Several FAMU trustees interviewed said they're disappointed in the letter, but said the MEAC has every right to punish Florida's only public historically black university.

There's always a consequence to every action," said the Rev. R.B. Holmes, a trustee. "Again, this is another unfortunate incident in the history of FAMU. ... We're at fault." ...
 
Jafus (Thinker) said:
Bluedog,

The ultimate question will come around the NCAA decision on whether to band them from post season participation and if so, how long.
My quess is a min. of five yrs.
 
Violations ruling may take several months
spacer.gif

[size=-1]By Heath A. Smith[/size]

spacer.gif

[size=-1]DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER[/size]
spacer.gif

<!-- begin body-content -->Violations ruling may take several months

No decision on Florida A&M's reported 196 NCAA violations is expected Monday, according to an NCAA spokesperson. In fact, it could take months before the NCAA's enforcement staff determines the validity of the infractions, according to Kay Hawes, associate director of media relations for the NCAA.

It took considerably less time for the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference to determine the validity of the infractions and an appropriate course of punishment for FAMU.

The MEAC sent a letter to FAMU on June29 saying it planned to strip the school of 11 conference championships and seek reimbursement for All-Sports Trophies won by the school during the time of the infractions.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/sports/9111751.htm
 
Well, they said that they wanted to go to I-A, so I guess that they followed the SEC model...

Seriously, though, none of these are as serious as condoning rape.
 
FAMU Has Its Name Sullied

We all know the weather pattern in the state of Florida during the summer -hot during the day followed by afternoon thunderstorms. This pattern can go for a week or two non-stop.

In Tallahassee, however, the rain just won't stop for Florida A&M University.

What has already been a long, hard year for FAMU got even rougher after a disclosure stated the school has committed 196 NCAA violations.

To make matters worse, the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference said it plans to strip FAMU of 11 conference championships won between 1998 and 2002 and also seeks reimbursement of any revenue received for winning the conference All-Sports Trophy.

Not that there is a good time for something like this to happen, but this was particularly bad timing. The athletic department is already $700,000 in the hole. And the Rattlers are still nursing a hangover from their failed attempt at moving the football program from Division I-AA to I-A status.

Rap superstar Jay-Z said in a song, he's got 99 problems. Well, FAMU has nearly twice as many, but going I-A in football ain't one, at least not anymore.

Most of the 196 infractions involve students who were not properly certified for academic progress.

Student athletes must make certain progress toward completion of their degree during each semester to be certified academically eligible.

Because so many athletes (117 reported) in so many sports (14) were deemed to be ineligible, then someone in the compliance office is more than likely misinterpreting some rules than knowingly doing something improper.

Most of the violations found are secondary violations, meaning it is not likely the Rattlers will be cited for lack of institutional control and be banned from sports.

Still, it is time for FAMU to teach that person what they're doing wrong or get someone in who knows what they're doing.

FAMU has already submitted to the NCAA what it deems would be suitable punishment, including reduction in scholarships in the sports. That, along with the MEAC's punishment, may be enough, although the NCAA has six months to either agree or issue more punishment.

No matter what the NCAA does, it is time for FAMU to get its house in order.

It is time for the president of the university to get someone in the athletic department that knows about handling athletic budgets. Then, they both should both find a compliance officer who is knowledgeable about NCAA rules and regulations. Then, they need to hire someone to help that officer because it is such an important job.

These things must be done now.

It is too late to undo the damage that has turned the university's once-sparkling reputation into the punch line of a bad joke. But it is not too late to prevent further damage from being done.

Forget about finding an umbrella. It is time for FAMU to get out of the rain.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040713/NEWS/407130368/1254
 
Odds & ends & oddities that won't end

By Roosevelt Wilson
Publisher

Rattler supporters on Internet forums, across the state and around town say they find it odd that Florida A&M University is feverishly protecting Jonathan Evans, the compliance officer on whose watch FAMU admitted to committing 196 student eligibility infractions.

For a while, a couple of weeks ago Evans had been named director of football operations, but that promotion now apparently has been put on hold.

In addition, FAMU officials are vowing to give Evans help in the compliance office ? two full-time assistants and two graduate assistants, bringing FAMU?s compliance office staff to five.

This newspaper last week conducted a random telephone survey of three historically black colleges with athletic programs similar to FAMU?s ? but have not had a compliance monitoring problem ? to ask how many compliance officers they have.

Tennessee State has one and one assistant; Jackson State and Southern University each has one.

What makes monitoring compliance at FAMU so difficult that it requires so much help for a compliance officer who for six years seems to have been monitoring nothing?

Mickey Clayton, Evans? predecessor, had no problems monitoring compliance and he had no more help and no fewer student-athletes to monitor.

FAMU officials are creating questions about their judgment by defending such indefensible incompetence.

Some have tried to blame the coaches, but no coach in his or her right mind would play a student-athlete that the compliance officer rules ineligible based on NCAA, conference or institutional rules.

FAMU President Fred Gainous told trustees during their June 29 meeting that the infractions were the result of a misinterpretation of the NCAA rules. But there is universal understanding that ignorance of the law is no excuse. And that is even more so when it is one?s job to know the rules.

By the way, before Evans, Mickey Clayton ran the compliance office ? a one-man operation ? and FAMU didn?t have such problems.

Trustee Randy Hanna called me and said I made an error ?in fact? when I said he said he had been working for three years on the controversial TCC-FAMU articulation agreement that his trustee colleagues voted down June 29 during a special meeting called to discuss the agreement.

It was during the discussion of that agreement that I attributed the statement to Hanna.

In fairness to Hanna, here is the transcript of his statement in his own words:

?I?m just trying to get my hands around exactly where we were, where we are. We left the last meeting - I think the consensus was, although there was a motion, the consensus was that the president would work on some of these things with TCC, would find out kinda the timing for trying to get this done and we would try to give the faculty senate an opportunity to discuss this.
?And then listening to Provost Robinson, you ? basically you put this back on the agenda for us to discuss, which I am, I am ? frankly I?m very pleased to be able to consider it again.

?I want to make a couple of comments. I?m certainly, I?m certainly willing to hear anything else the faculty senate wants to say. As I said before, this thing has been out there for quite a bit of time. I guess I?m ? I guess I?m confused about why, in which ? maybe I?m missing something ? I?m confused about why there?s such a high level of controversy about this.

?On a couple of fronts, number one, it doesn?t require us to offer courses; it?s basically a start for how we develop a better working relationship between them.

?Second, this is something that I have been talking about for the three, and almost three year ? more than three years that I?ve been on the board. And frankly it?s pretty embarrassing to me that in the three years that I?ve been talking about it that our numbers have been going down.?

Some FAMU supporters criticized this newspaper for breaking the story on the penalties handed down by the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference for violating nearly 200 NCAA eligibility rules.

That?s like blaming the radiologist for reading an X-ray and discovering cancer. The radiologist didn?t create the cancer and telling about it won?t change the status of the disease.

But if the person with the disease tries to hide it instead of doing something about it, it simply will get worse until it becomes fatal.

That?s why FAMU had better clean up its act in athletics instead of being upset that the news of the penalties were reported.

It?s not as if not reporting them the penalties would have disappeared.
 
Back
Top