Appeal-Manifest Hardship-LETH Volleyball |
(
Appeal Ruling
) |
2013-14 SeasonApril 1, 2014Memorandum To: Avery Harrison, Athletics Manager - Lethbridge College Date: April 1, 2014 Re: Appeal Panel Decision – Lethbridge College appeal of the penalty assessed by the ACAC in relation to the application for Manifest Hardship resulting from the withdrawal of the LC Men’s Volleyball Team in the 2013-14 season CC: Appeal Panel Members – Ryan Willison; Chris Shoults An ACAC Appeal Panel comprised of Ryan Willison (Ambrose University College), Chris Shoults (St. Mary’s University College) and Chaired by ACAC Conference Council alum Yvonne Becker, met to consider your Appeal on Tuesday April 1. The Appeal Panel unanimously agreed to support the Lethbridge College appeal of the penalties assessed by the ACAC Conference Council on the basis of: OC Article III, Section 4, 6.1, f) As per OC Article III, Section 4, 10.1 c), it is the prerogative of the Appeal Panel: Accordingly, the penalty has been reduced by 50% and will now be assessed as a fine of $250 per forfeited 2013-14 men’s volleyball match for a total fine of $4000 payable by Lethbridge College. February 14, 2014Francois Fournier RE: Notification of Appeal by the Lethbridge College Dear Francois, Please be notified that the Lethbridge College is submitting an appeal on the decision made at the December 2013 ACAC council meetings with regards to the Manifest Hardship declaration and the request for reinstatement of the Men's Volleyball team for the 2014-2015 season. As per your email of February 7, 2014, we are within the 7 day extension that was provided to the Lethbridge College upon receipt of the portion of the discussion dealin with the Lethbridge Manifest Hardship request from the December Council meetings. Following Section 4 Appeal Policy in the ACAC Operating Code, the documentation enclosed indicates our reasons for filing. Sincerely, Avery Harrison Lethbridge College ACAC AppealPreamble: On November 4th, 2013, it was brought to the attention of the Kodiaks Athletics Department that several members of the College’s Men’s Volleyball team were involved in alleged criminal activities. An internal investigation was immediately initiated, and of the 14 athletes, 10 openly admitted to being involved to varying degrees. Criminal investigations are still ongoing in this case. With these athletes admitting their involvement and all 10 of them naming 4 athletes who were not involved, the department then discussed options for the program. It was very clear that the athletes had broken the Lethbridge College Athletics Code of Conduct. WE also felt the ACAC Code of Ethics had been jeopardized. It was the decision of the department to expel the 10 athletes involved from the Kodiak Men’s Volleyball Team. It is clearly written in the ACAC Operating Code that a team must have eight members to field a team in Volleyball. After expelling the 10 Athletes involved, the team had only four remaining. When try-outs were held in the fall, 16 athletes tried for positions on the team (only two were cut). In discussion with Ian Bennett, our Lethbridge College Men’s Volleyball coach, we came to the conclusion that there were not enough athletes on campus to put a new team together. To convince non-athletes to come out would put the program in jeopardy, and there was a potential of the team folding once these new athletes saw the time commitment and work involved. We had a very strong, competitive, promising, team entering the 2013-2014 season, and when faced with this situation felt no other recourse could be followed than to apply for Manifest Hardship with ACAC. The ACAC Decision: (December 2013)
Grounds for Appeal of the ACAC Decision Point 2: (Article 111 Section 4-Appeal Policy) B) Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the By-Laws and/or Operating Code of the Conference. D) Failing to consider relevant information, or taking into account irrelevant information in making the decision. F) Making a decision that was grossly unreasonable. Rationale for the Appeal: Lethbridge College does not appeal the ACAC decision to approve the Manifest Hardship or the reinstatement bond. These are very clear in the Operating Code and do not require discussion or justification. However, the decision to apply the maximum allowable penalty of $500.00 per game fine is discretionary, and that is what we are appealing. (Article I Section 3 – ETHICS) 2.4. Directors of athletics shall make every effort to ensure that athletes and other participants conduct themselves in a manner that reflects a positive image of the institution they represent and Alberta Colleges Athletic Conference. Lethbridge College took the necessary steps in standing up for what the ACAC believes in. The core values of accountability and integrity were supported by our actions, and should have the support of the ACAC not only in spirit, but in action. Lethbridge College has a responsibility to not only ACAC, but to the community of Lethbridge. We are regarded as pillars in the growth and promotion of athletics to Southern Alberta residents. Our decision was not made lightly, at great risk to the reputation of our program we upheld what we all stand for, and such a severe punishment from ACAC is not warranted. To say “We support you, and applauded your decision”, then fine us this heavily is not supportive, it is punitive. Lethbridge College was faced with alleged criminal activities and acted ethically and swiftly to a situation with very serious legal implications. The actions that we took had a social impact on not only our community, but demonstrated the integrity and standards that we uphold in our athletes and our program. Several Kodiak athletes, community members, coaches and managers, have approached the department with positive support of our decision and the actions that we took to rectify the situation. B) Failing to follow procedures as laid out in the By-Laws and/or Operating Code of the Conference. When looking at the Operating Code it states the following under Article III Section 2 - MANIFEST HARDSHIP: 2. Adjudication The resolution of a case of manifest hardship shall be made by a majority vote of the members of the Conference Council, exclusive of the vote or votes of the member presenting the case. This vote will be conducted at the earliest call of the President. 5. Reinstatement For an institution to be reinstated following an absence due to manifest hardship, the athletic director shall apply for such with supporting documents which shall include a list of program commitments and a letter from the institution’s president. The reinstatement shall be accomplished by a 3/4 favourable vote of the Council. 5.1. Reinstatement Fee: An institution reinstated following an absence due to manifest hardship shall be required to post a $1000.00 bond which shall be refunded provided that all obligations have been met. It is our understanding of the code that in order for reinstatement, Manifest Hardship must first be granted and decided on. Once the decision has been made, the institution would then have the opportunity to apply for reinstatement. These are two events that we feel need to occur separately in order to follow proper procedures. Lethbridge College was advised by ACAC to submit both documents together (Appendix A), and both of these issues were reviewed by the council in the same meeting. In the minutes: MOTION (Babey/Ryan): That the 2013-14 Lethbridge College men’s volleyball team be approved for manifest hardship as per the ACAC Operating Code. CARRIED (27-0-2) Council then discussed the possibility of fining Lethbridge College for neglecting to fill their schedule commitments however Council noted they would rather impose strict conditions on the reinstatement of the program than impose a fine. MOTION (Babey/Hansen): That no fine be incurred by the Lethbridge College men’s volleyball team for declaring manifest hardship. CARRIED (25-2-2) In following the natural order of proceedings this clearly states that the Lethbridge College had been granted Manifest Hardship with no fines applied. In following procedures, Lethbridge College supplied all the required documentation for reinstatement for the 2014-15 season. According to the minutes from council: MOTION (Kolmel/Murray): That the Lethbridge College men’s volleyball team be granted reinstatement with a $1,000 bond as per the Operating Code for the 2014-15 season. It was then suggested the motion be tabled until the final day of the meetings to allow more time for thought on other possible contingencies. CARRIED (27-0-2) There is no reference in this section of the code to additional sanctions that can be imposed, and nothing in the penalty section that ties it to Reinstatement. The minutes say: Council agreed they would be unable to enforce any additional contingencies regarding reinstatement and the increased presentation of the Lethbridge code of conduct to studentathletes. Council therefore decided to re-visit the manifest hardship fine rather than impose future contingencies on the program as the original reason for voting for no fine was to instead impose strict reinstatement conditions rather than fine. However, as these conditions could not be efficiently monitored by the ACAC, Council discussed a fine as they felt there should a penalty for failing to meet the ACAC schedule commitments. MOTION (Ryan/Henderson): That Council reconsiders the motion to fine Lethbridge College for their withdrawal from the 2013-14 men’s volleyball season after their declaration of manifest hardship. CARRIED (27-0-2) MOTION (Ryan/Henderson): That Lethbridge College be fined $500 per game for their withdrawal from the 2013-14 men’s volleyball season. CARRIED (27-0-2) MOTION (Babey/Henderson): That the Lethbridge College men’s volleyball team be granted reinstatement with a $1,000 bond as per the Operating Code for the 2014-15 season. CARRIED (27-0-2) Reinstatement and fines are two completely separate issues and should not be considered to have to tie in together. We feel that the there was no reason for revisiting the manifest hardship issue as this was voted on and decided earlier in the meetings. The only issue for review should have been the reinstatement on the final day. It is our opinion that had the application for reinstatement been presented to ACAC at a later date, there would not have been a revisiting of the manifest hardship, and a fine would not have been assessed. Looking to find a recourse of action in the reinstatement of the team, and unable to have authority to impose contingencies, the council took unnecessary steps to punish the Lethbridge College. D) “...taking into account irrelevant information in making the decision.” As the minutes state, there was an in-camera session that was held regarding the reinstatement of the Men’s Volleyball Team for the 2014-2015 season. Avery Harrison, the Athletics Manager for the Lethbridge College, was not a part of the session, but in post conversations following the meeting with members who were part of the discussion, he was made aware that there were considerations given to areas that we feel were not relevant in the decision of the case.
F) Making a Decision that was grossly unreasonable: Section 2 Manifest Hardship 3. Penalty Teams defaulting/forfeiting (failure to appear/or complete a game) may be subject to a fine of up to $500.00 per occurrence and/or suspension in that sport for the balance of that year’s schedule and/or the following year’s schedule. Key words in this section are “may be subject to a fine of up to $500.00 per occurrence.” The section does not say a team must be fined, nor does it say they must be fined the maximum allowable of $500.00. In past cases the ACAC has reduced fines and even had no fine applied in manifest hardship cases. When Augustana withdrew from Women’s Hockey late in the year they were initially fined heavily because it was a financial decision to withdraw and save money. On appeal they had their fines reduced to half. When Briercrest Women’s Basketball withdrew a few years ago, due to students leaving school and others not passing academically there was no fine set at all for their circumstances. Lethbridge College was faced with alleged criminal activities and acted ethically and swiftly to a situation with very serious legal implications. There was no disclosure for the rationale behind the penalty amount in the minutes to justify the vote change from majority in favor of no fines to imposing the maximum fine. We do not feel discretion was used in this case. Final Statement: Lethbridge College upheld what we all stand for as members of the ACAC, and such a severe punishment is not warranted. The reputation of our Athletics program has been seriously affected by the actions we were forced to take. We are appealing under the unusual circumstances of our case. We self-reported and gave a very lengthy full disclosure to the Council to make them fully aware of the situation we faced. The proceedings of the meeting has created undue influence on the severity of the fine we were assessed. In retrospect, we believe that the manifest hardship should have been the only item reviewed by the ACAC council at the December meetings. Once that decision was made, our application for reinstatement should have been filed at a later date. This would have ensured the separation required from the two procedures to fairly assess our case. We complied with the request from ACAC to expedite the process and submit both documents at the same time (Appendix A), and hoped that this would allow enough time to include the Lethbridge Men’s Volleyball team to be included in the creation of the 2014-2015 season schedule. By reviewing both together it is of our opinion that the fines were assessed only because there was no recourse in the code for a penalty when a team applies for reinstatement. If this is something council wishes to approach in the future, it needs to be amended in the code. While we understand that there may be a need for a penalty, we do not understand a penalty of the maximum amount. Lethbridge College has already paid a heavy penalty, with media coverage of our situation, the season long penalty of no Men’s Volleyball team, losing a nationally ranked team, severe losses at the gate for attendance, and the public embarrassment Lethbridge College has been through the entire year. We appeal for leniency looking at precedent in cases of manifest hardship, to either reduce the fines significantly, or as in the case of Briercrest, impose no fine at all, and allow us to meet the requirements of reinstatement as we have already done. In conclusion, Lethbridge College was faced with alleged criminal activities and acted ethically and swiftly to a situation with very serious legal implications. The actions that we took had a social impact on not only our community, but demonstrated the integrity and standards that we uphold in our Athletes and our program. Our athletes are role models to not only each other, but to the entire student body and the community. This case has set a precedent for upholding the ACAC Codes of Ethics and their core values, however there needs to be a final supportive closure on the part of the ACAC by not excessively monetarily penalizing a school who is a long time ACAC member in good standing. |