Search News


Browse Archives

News

All Play and No Work

September 3, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Georgetown University has reimbursed the U.S. Department of Education for nearly $62,000 in federal work study payments it gave to 26 baseball players over the course of seven years for employment the athletes did not complete.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Division I Committee on Infractions released a report Wednesday detailing the first major infractions case in Georgetown’s history. In 2007, as a result of a routine athletics department audit, Georgetown officials discovered “irregularities” in the distribution of federal work study dollars to baseball players. Officials from the university self-reported these violations to the NCAA and say they will not appeal its decision to place them on a three-year probation and make them vacate all the wins from the 2000-1 to the 2006-7 seasons in which the improperly paid players participated.

Daniel R. Porterfield, interim director of athletics at Georgetown, said at a news conference following the NCAA’s decision that the institution addressed the matter with the Department of Education immediately after the infraction was discovered, acknowledging that the questionable disbursement of these work study funds probably violated federal financial aid laws. He added that the institution has reimbursed the funds to the Department of Education and considers the mattered resolved.

During the seven seasons in question, several baseball players eligible for federal work study worked to earn their benefits by completing routine tasks like maintaining the team’s baseball field, distributing team equipment and doing laundry. Instead of keeping accurate time sheets documenting precisely when they started and stopped working, the players were instructed by an assistant baseball coach (whom athletics officials would not name, but confirmed no longer works at Georgetown) to record a maximum of 20 hours per week on the time sheets “with the understanding that they would be assigned and would complete work sufficient to warrant payment for those hours.”

This decision not to track the actual hours for these work study athletes was made in 2000, when the team moved to a new baseball field that was located many miles off campus. The NCAA report notes that “there developed a general understanding that keeping track of the specific work intervals, which occurred at various times, in various increments, and often off campus, was too difficult and not required.”

The unidentified assistant coach told the NCAA committee that he “never instructed student-athletes to submit time [sheets] that would result in their being paid for more hours than they actually worked,” adding that he “perceived work-study payment as a financial aid entitlement for financially needy baseball students-athletes, provided the student-athletes fulfilled the designated assignments and duties.” These players received between $8 and $9 per hour for their work -- about the same range that most work study students at Georgetown receive -- and used the money to supplement their partial athletics scholarships. The baseball team has only five full scholarships, which it distributes among several dozen players.

Still, Georgetown’s self-report to the NCAA notes that during the average off-season from 2000-1 through 2005-6, the players “legitimately earned” only 30 percent of their work study pay. This figure plummeted to 10 percent during the 2006-7 off-season.

Though the assistant coach who was in charge of these work-study players no longer works at Georgetown, Pete Wilk -- the head baseball coach who has been at the institution for 10 years -- will remain despite this major infraction. Porterfield said Wilk would not be let go because the university and the NCAA reports make the case that Wilk did not know about the infractions until they were discovered.

Photo: Georgetown Sports Information

Pete Wilk, head baseball coach.

“I am profoundly sorry that I didn’t take an active hand in this oversight,” Wilk told the NCAA committee, as noted in the report. “If I had overseen the program properly as I should have, none of us would be here today.”

Though Wilk admitted to this “failure to monitor” the work study program, the NCAA also blamed the institution for not providing enough oversight to prevent this infraction.

Porterfield, however, said the university’s main financial aid office did not share any culpability for the violations. He said that it determines the work study eligibility for all students but that the individual university departments are responsible for the day-to-day paperwork of ensuring that dollars are distributed properly. Porterfield said the university’s main financial aid office does periodic audits to ensure that these types of abuses do not take place, but placed sole blame on the athletics department for this violation.

In addition to the probation and the vacation of records, Georgetown must pay the NCAA a $61,552 penalty, equal to the improper benefits paid to the baseball players, even though it has already reimbursed the Department of Education this amount. Further, the institution will no longer allow its athletes to complete work study employment for the teams on which they play.

In an apologetic letter to students, faculty and staff, Georgetown’s president expressed remorse for the violation.

“While this mistake is certainly unacceptable, it is important to note that the investigation concluded that the individuals involved did not intend to cheat or violate NCAA rules and that Georgetown's baseball program did not receive any competitive advantage as a result of these infractions,” wrote John J. DeGioia.

Paul Dee, chair of the Committee on Infractions and lecturer of law and education at the University of Miami, said he does not believe that violations of this sort, involving athletes improperly receiving federal financial aid, are widespread. He noted that he could only recall two other such cases in the past two decades.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on All Play and No Work

  • Does this reflect the Jesuit Tradition?
  • Posted by John D. Foubert, Ph.D. , Scholar who studies moral development on September 3, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Georgetown University is hailed as a leader of Jesuit Catholic education in this country. Does this incident, and more importantly the response to it, reflect the principles of the Jesuit Order? I have worked with many Jesuit Colleges in my travels as a consultant and I've found them to be places of deep religious and moral conviction. The President's letter in this case does not seem to match the gravity of the violation committed here. The tone seems to be "everyone cooperated with the investigation, it wasn't a big deal, we can move on now."

    This article states that a coach told players to fill out time sheets saying they completed 20 hours of work per week so that they could receive money from a federal program -- funded by the taxes of everyone in the United States -- when any reasonable person looking at this can clearly see that the coach knew these players were not putting in 20 hours. Even the players clearly knew they weren't putting in 20 hours. After all, if this article is accurate, they weren't working close to that number.

    What moral obligation does Georgetown now have toward the players who falsified government documents stating that they worked hours that they did not work? If Georgetown -- a Jesuit Institution -- says this is acceptable as long as they offer a half-hearted "apology", will these players think it is OK and no big deal? What messages do these players take away from this? What messages does the broader public take away from this? It seems to me one message that is sent is this: Why not cheat on your taxes? If you get caught, just pay them back and say your sorry but you can make it OK by saying you fully cooperated with the investigation.

    Moral violations don't happen in isolation. What our religiously based institutions do and how they handle their errors is noticed by students and the public. A Jesuit institution, particularly one held in such esteem as Georgetown should realize this. Georgetown, you can do better than this. You answer to a much higher authority.

  • Nice comment, Dr. Foubert,
  • Posted by DFS on September 3, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • But I think that we have to thank the boosters' capitulation towards political correctness for this.

    Remember the ready fleet of helicopter-borne attorneys available to the supposedly racially 'offended.'

    After all, any involved (future?) agents would be advised to throw such up in all of our faces, if need be.

  • Hoyas, oh, boya!
  • Posted by Ralphinjersey on September 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Of course they only completed 30% of the hours for which they were paid. They're baseball players -- and how often do we hear that, "Failing 70% of the time is good enough to get you into the Hall of Fame"?

  • Agree to Disagree
  • Posted by C Nutz , Mr. on September 9, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Dr. Foubert, I stumbled across your comment and cannot help but be impelled to disagree with your shunning of the GU President´s reaction letter to this incident. As a member of the broader public, not to mention an alum of one such Jesuit institution, I must say that I did not pick up on the obvious ´deep religious and moral conviction´that you observed in all your business conducted with like universities. I respect your right to a point of view, but I must point out that while you assert the President of GU words his apology to make this incident seem acceptable, he clearly states "this mistake is certainly unacceptable." If a few outliers want to interpret the letter to suit their own, immoral lifestyles, that is not the fault of the writer.
    As far as the moral responsibility of GU goes, I cannot think of a more just, ethical and moral way that any other institution could have, or would have reacted to this situation. To root out the problem, report it of their own volition, and then lay out their own punishment must have been difficult, but Georgetown did it.
    You fail to make clear wether you see this as a government or religious issue. Are the two linked? From what I know of the Jesuits, or Christianity in general, they practice forgiveness. Unless of course you are more of an old testament kind of guy. I guess somewhere along the line, religion was wise enough to realize that sometimes people do the wrong thing. The deep moral conviction shines in the follow up. I am not sure Georgetown, or any other school could ´be better than this´. You suggest Reverend Dimmesdale-like penitence, while those who want to continue progressing as opposed to doting on a mistake for long might simply locate the error(s), take the appropriate actions, face the punishment, take steps to ensure something similar never happens again, and say ´lesson learned´.
    On another note, that comment with the 30% was great, very witty sir.