By Kevin Zwick , Staff Reporter
Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (April 9) – A Commonwealth Court ruling issued Wednesday calls into question the validity of the consent decree imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) on Penn State as a result of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
The NCAA says the ruling was made “entirely without basis.”
The opinion from Judge Anne Covey questions whether the NCAA followed its normal procedure in imposing a $60 million fine against the university as part of a package of penalties.
The ruling found a state law that keeps the $60 million penalty in Pennsylvania to be valid, despite an NCAA challenge to the law’s constitutionality. The ruling also added Penn State to the civil proceedings.
“This is a lot bigger than bowl games,” said Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Jake Corman, R-Centre, who along with State Treasurer Rob McCord sued the NCAA over control of the monetary fine. The next discussion will be whether the consent decree was legal to begin with, he said.
“The Consent Decree expressly recognizes the NCAA’s questionable involvement in and its dubious authority pertaining to a criminal action against a non-university official which involved children who were non-university student-athletes,” the ruling states. The ruling indicates the question arose from a previous filing from the NCAA.
The ruling then recites a line from the Decree: “[t]he sexual abuse of children on university campus by a former university official…while despicable, ordinarily would not be actionable by the NCAA.”
President Judge Dan Pellegrini, who dissented from the Covey opinion, wrote he was “bewildered” that the Penn State Board of Trustees could have approved or allowed the penalties when the consent decree says the matter “ordinarily would not be actionable by the NCAA.”
McCord said in a statement: “Significantly, like many Pennsylvanians, the court appears to be concerned that the NCAA may have overstepped its own authority when it imposed upon Penn State the consent decree. I share this concern.”
“The point (of the case now) is what is proper process, and what is due process,” Corman said. “Maybe this is precedent for future cases. What they did, I believe, is pass their own guidelines and boundaries to impose this consent decree. And Penn State, I believe through fear of the NCAA, accepted it.”
The court said the Consent Decree had wide-ranging impact.
“High school athletes who had no involvement in the criminal acts were prevented from obtaining a free college education. Student-athletes, trainers, coaches and support personnel who were taught and trained to be and do their best were stopped from competing and student-athletes from other colleges and universities were also precluded from competing against them by the prohibition against post-season play. Student-athletes, trainers, coaches, administrators and support personnel who had excelled in their jobs through hard work, practice, commitment, team work, sportsmanship, excellence and perseverance were told none of that mattered,” ruling states.
The court opted not to make a legal determination “which has such far reaching implications without conducting a hearing on the disputed factual issues.”
The legal issue started when Corman sued the NCAA last year over control of the monetary fine. McCord later joined the lawsuit, acting under authority granted to him by a law proposed by Corman called the Higher Education Monetary Penalty Endowment Act. The law essentially prevented the $60 million in fines from being used outside Pennsylvania, which was the NCAA’s intention.
The NCAA had charged the law was “special legislation” created for the sole purpose of dealing with the sanctions against Penn State. Wednesday’s ruling found the Endowment Act law to be valid.
“We believe the Court’s ruling is entirely without basis,” said NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy. “If this decision stands, it would mean that the Endowment Act does not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution, which it so clearly does. Senator Corman wrote the act to interfere with the consent decree, and was not intended to be applied beyond the NCAA’s agreement with Penn State. We are even more surprised the Court determined the consent decree itself is somehow at issue, although the validity of the agreement has not been questioned by the plaintiff. The NCAA will continue to vigorously defend the consent decree, an agreement with Penn State that both the NCAA and Penn State continue to support.”
Sandusky, a former assistant football coach, is serving 30-60 years in prison on 45 charges he raped young boys. The NCAA said there was an “unprecedented failure of institutional integrity” and levied sanctions against the university, including the $60 million fine, reducing scholarships, banning the university from post-season bowls for four years, and vacating the late legendary football coach Joe Paterno’s wins since 1998.
-30-
• Story was updated with response from the NCAA.
