Jim Harrick fired for NCAA infraction

Thursday, November 7, 1996

BASKETBALL:

Confusion regarding recruitment dinner led to dismissalBy Brent
Boyd

Daily Bruin Senior Staff

On Wednesday, two weeks before his ninth season at UCLA was to
open, men’s basketball coach Jim Harrick was fired.

Harrick’s contract was terminated, effective immediately,
following an investigation into an NCAA extra benefits infraction
and ensuing misstatements about the infraction by Harrick. Steve
Lavin will take over as interim head coach for the 1996-97
season.

"UCLA is deeply disappointed about these actions," Chancellor
Charles Young said in a statement. "We have concluded that Harrick
conducted himself in a manner that was inconsistent with his
position as a role model to students, where ethical behavior is so
important."

The incident that caused Harrick’s dismissal was a dinner hosted
by the head coach for prospective student-athletes on Oct. 11 at a
local restaurant. According to NCAA regulations, each recruit may
be accompanied by one "host," or current player.

At a press conference Wednesday, Harrick said the three recruits
present were accompanied by Bob Myers, Kris Johnson, and Jelani
McCoy. Cameron Dollar and Charles O’Bannon later joined the group,
breaking the NCAA rules.

However, the expense report signed by Harrick had substituted
the names of non-players in place of the two extra Bruins.

"The first one I turned in I had the wrong name on it," Harrick
said. "It was a mistake, but I corrected it. They signed it off,
they never questioned it. I corrected it and now they’re really
making something out of it. I was wrong and I made a mistake, but
to cost you your job?"

But according to university officials, it was the next couple of
weeks that actually cost the the second-winningest coach in UCLA
history his job. He repeatedly misinformed members of the athletic
department about the details of the dinner, officials said.

"We might have responded less severely if (the infraction) had
been the only violation," Young said. "But the situation was
exacerbated by other actions that followed. It would have been
treated differently if he been forthright from the beginning."

Although some thought the punishment was too severe, considering
it was the first ethical breach by Harrick that the athletic
department had been aware of, Young seemed to think otherwise.

"I think Watergate is the analogy ­ the break-in to the
Democratic National Committee Headquarters was not all that big of
an act," he said. "But, what followed it brought down the President
of the United States."

The university offered Harrick a chance to resign Tuesday
evening after practice, recovering his salary for the 1996-97
season. However, he turned down the opportunity, opting to be fired
and thus foregoing all potential income.

"I feel if you resign, then I am saying they have something,"
Harrick said. "I am agreeing, and although I did make a mistake, I
still feel the punishment a million times outweighs the crime."

To make amends, Harrick said he will probably file a lawsuit. He
had a signed contract through the 1999-2000 season, but his
contract was terminated without pay.

A letter from Harrick’s lawyer, Robert K. Tannenbaum, to UCLA
athletic director Peter Dalis ended with a threat to the
university: "What (Harrick) did receive in his early- evening Nov.
5 meeting were threats of reprisal and insinuations of further,
concerted action on your and the University’s part to stain his
integrity. Although it is your apparent intention to try my client
in the court of the ‘News at 11:00,’ he shall not ‘go gentle into
that good night.’ Every evening has a morning that follows, and
your day-break has now begun."

However, Young believes that the school need not worry too much
about a potential lawsuit.

"(Harrick) is being terminated solely because of a breach in his
contract," he said.

Despite winning a national championship two seasons ago and
three conference championships in the past five years, a rocky
relationship between Dalis and Harrick has often been rumored to
exist. But Dalis insists he was not just looking for any
opportunity to fire Harrick.

"I can only say that we are vigilant in our scrutiny of every
one of our coaches," Dalis said. "We are concerned and cautious
about many of our coaches and student-athletes."

But, Harrick’s side felt the other way. Although Harrick
declined comment, his lawyer believed the school treated him
unfairly.

"I think they were out to get to him and it’s very regrettable,
very regrettable," Tannenbaum said. "All he asked for in this
particular circumstance was to let him hear the charge, give him a
chance to respond, and let him have a name-clearing hearing, and
they denied it. They wanted to talk about severance and they issued
non-negotiable demands. It’s somewhat shocking for UCLA, this grand
institution uttering non-negotiable demands."

Charles O’Bannon isn’t too confident in the athletic
department’s reasoning either.

"We haven’t necessarily tried to see if the athletic department
looked for an excuse to get rid of Harrick," he said. "That’s the
way it looks right now that they took his job because of a small
infraction."

Because of the infraction, UCLA reported itself to the Pacific
10 conference and NCAA.

According to Dalis, it was a serious violation of NCAA bylaws
and it is almost certain that there would be some action taken
against UCLA.

All potential recruits involved will remain eligible to attend
UCLA. However, the two Bruins who arrived to the dinner late have
been ruled ineligible, but are expected to return for the season
opener Nov. 20.

Steve Lavin was also at the dinner, but has been cleared of any
potential wrongdoing.

AARON TOUT

Jim Harrick, left, and his lawyer Robert Tannenbaum speak to the
media shortly after UCLA’s announcement to terminate Harrick’s
coaching contract.

Campus news bulletin from Chancellor Young