Note: This article originally appeared as a blog post, published on January 19th, 2017. Most of it was later incorporated into another article, which can be found here.
So says Rick Evrard, the lead on UNC's Bond, Schoeneck & King (BSK) legal team in NCAA Case No. 00231
Evrard doesn't say in that page 19 footnote how it is inaccurate to draw the conclusion that the University of North Carolina, basing decisions on new information revealed in the October 2014 Wainstein Report, fired academic counselors for conduct as described in the Allegation 1(a) of the May 20th, 2015 Notice of Allegations, I know I'd reached the same conclusion as NCAA Enforcement Director Tom Hosty had in the letter to which Evrard refers.
How are we wrong to reach such a conclusion.
1) The original Notice of Allegation (NOA), May 20th, 2015, asserted in Allegation 1(a) that ASPSA counselors had leveraged relationships with AFAM faculty/staff to obtain/provide special arrangements for student-athletes.
One example the NOA gives of such conduct was counselors "recommending grades."
 |
| http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf |
2) During the interim period between UNC's submission of new information on August 14th, 2015 and the issuance of the April 16th, 2016 ANOA, UNC and NCAA Enforcement engaged in communications about a number of issues, including those regarding NOA Allegation 1(a),
On December 16th, 2015, Tom Hosty responded to Rick Evrard, citing the university's personnel actions in response to the Wainstein findings. Hosty stated UNC's personnel actions were based on "information not previously known."
 |
| https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2016/12/December-16-2015-letter-from-Tom-Hosty-to-Rick-Evrard.pdf |
3) Rick Evrard's response addressed many issues, countering NCAA Enforcement's defense of the original NOA language; and, in a footnote, he rebutted Hosty's implication that the university's personnel actions were indicative of misconduct relevant to Allegation 1(a), though he did not demonstrate how it was incorrect.
 |
| https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2016/12/January-7-2016-letter-from-Rick-Evrard-to-Tom-Hosty.pdf |
4) It's difficult to dispute or validate Evrard's claim since the University of North Carolina has not (to my knowledge) ever provided the public with a rationale for the terminations of the three at-will counselors: Beth Bridger, Jaimie Lee and Brent Blanton.
But the termination letter for Jan Boxill was made public; and it plainly states the termination action was based on "heretofore unknown detail" and evidence of Boxill's misconduct, which specifically includes one of the conduct elements outlined in Allegation 1(a). The termination letter language is actually more severe, citing "requesting grades" vice "recommending grades" as Allegation 1(a) stated.
 |
| https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B24WwCUVnfYtVXlVVmpBQWhjdnM |
5) Clearly, for Boxill at least, termination was not merely for violations of University policy that were separate and distinct from conduct NCAA cited in Allegation 1(a). The University rationale may not mirror, verbatim, the articulation of conduct in 1(a), but it strains belief to deny that the institution's employment actions were not "based on new information that the institution learned about the conduct asserted in Allegation 1(a)" as Rick Evrard claims.
Of the four terminated who were academic counselors to athletes (Boxill, Bridger, Blanton and Lee), we only have the expressed reasons for UNC's actions in Boxill's case. The termination letters for the other three were not required to explain reasons for termination since they were at-will employees. However, the university is supposed to provide a public rationale after those employees appeal processes have been completed.
I'm unaware if UNC ever did release the rationale in any of the termination decisions of Bridger, Blanton or Lee. If Rick Evrard has this information, the University should make that public (and I would expect it to be dated prior to the communications between UNC and NCAA Enforcement cited above).
Boxill's case, in any regard, disputes Evrard's rebuttal of Hosty.
The "special arrangements" conduct and the whole of Allegation 1(a) was removed from the April 25th, 2016 Amended Notice of Allegations, but it has been restored in the December 13th, 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations.
