The Independent Accountability Resolution Process on Monday released a timeline of the developments in the infractions case against the University of Kansas men’s basketball team.
However, in the 52 entries that outlined updates in the case from May 8, 2020 through Aug. 30, 2021, none of them hint at any kind of projected ruling or outcome.
The release of Monday’s timeline is the result of an IARP rule change, adopted in early August, that was created to bring more transparency to the process.
IARP spokesperson and senior account director for Indianapolis-based marketing and advertising firm, Borshoff, Kelly Hoffman told the Journal-World Monday that details about when a ruling would be made were not available in order “to protect the integrity” of the IARP.
The entries on Monday’s timeline, which are listed chronologically by date, lack specific details and generally include one-sentence documentation of any relevant movement in the case.
The entries cover everything from responses filed by KU or the IARP to dates of general correspondence from both sides and the issuance of a case management plan as well as requests for extensions or clarification on the details within the case.
The first 12 entries, which fall under the heading “Referral Request Process” date back more than a year and provide a look at the steps that led to KU’s case being accepted onto the IARP track.
The next 11 entries fall under the “Case Management Plan Development” heading and they include three entries for correspondence from KU or Head Men’s Basketball Coach Counsel, along with responses to that correspondence, a proposal for scheduling deadlines on March 17 and the issuing of a Case Management Plan on April 1.
Given the fact that the IARP has drawn criticism for how long the process has taken in each of the six cases it is currently reviewing, it’s worth noting that there was a five-month gap between entries following a response from the IARP’s Infractions Referral Committee on Sept. 16, 2020 and Correspondence from Kansas on Feb. 21, 2021.
It has been reported in the past that the COVID-19 pandemic played a role in slowing down the process. That five-month gap of inactivity is by far the longest in KU’s case.
The remaining 29 entries fall under the heading “Investigation” and the most notable of those appears to be correspondence from KU and legal counsel for head coach Bill Self in May regarding the “appearance of a conflict of interest.” No further details were given and the IARP’s Complex Case Unit responded to those inquiries within a week.
According to the timeline, on Aug. 9, the chief panel member issued the first of two amended case management plans. Amended case management plan No. 2 was issued two weeks later on Aug. 23.
During that same time frame, the timeline outlines corre-spondence from Self regarding recusal, which is defined as the withdrawal of a judge, prosecutor or juror from a case on the grounds that they are unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
Eight days later, the Complex Case Unit responded to the recusal correspondence. No further details were provided.
The most recent entry on the timeline — dated Aug. 30, 2021 — notes that the CCU submitted a response regarding addi-tional clarity and position regarding investigative matters.
It is not yet known when, or if, the existing timeline will be up-dated again.
Hoffman told the Journal-World that the timelines released Monday include “key procedural actions in the lifecycle of the case after they have occurred, showing where they are in the process.”
“Once a decision has been made, information will be publicly released,” Hoffman added.
In addition, according to NCAA Bylaw 19.01.4, institutions and involved parties, including any representative or counsel, may not comment on the details or substance of any pending infractions cases.
All rulings by the IARP are final and not subject to appeal, which is different from rulings handed down by the more traditional NCAA Committee on Infractions.
None of the six cases that are on the IARP track have reached resolution. KU became the third school to enter the IARP path, behind Memphis and North Carolina State and ahead of LSU, Arizona and Louisville.
The NCAA’s case against KU, which includes allegations of five Level 1 infractions, a charge of head coach responsibility and a tag of lack of institutional control, was accepted by the IARP on July 1, 2020.
——
The following entries were taken directly from the IARP’s timeline
May 2020
May 18 — “The chair designee of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions, requested the Infractions Referral Committee refer the Kansas infractions case to the Independent Accountability Resolution Process.”
May 21 — “The managing director of enforcement, submitted a response to the referral request.”
June 2020
June 5 — “Kansas assistant men’s basketball coach, submitted a response to the referral request.”
June 8 — “Kansas, the head men’s basketball coach and the former head football coach submitted responses to the referral request.”
June 12 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a request to preserve evidence.”
June 12 — “Kansas submitted a request for whether the case will proceed as one infractions case or as multiple separate cases.”
June 12 — “The Infractions Referral Committee met to consider the referral request.”
June 17 — “The chair designee of the Committee on Infractions submitted a letter regarding whether the case will proceed as one infractions case or as multiple separate cases.”
June 19 — “The Infractions Referral Committee met to consider the referral request.”
June 26 — “The Infractions Referral Committee met to consider the referral request.”
July 2020
July 1 — “The Infractions Referral Committee referred the Kansas infractions case to the Independent Accountability Resolution Process.”
July 6 — “The chair designee of the Committee on Infractions submitted a letter regarding a memorandum from the enforcement staff regarding amendments to its written reply and statement of the case. The letter also discussed the Committee on Infractions’ jurisdiction regarding the case.”
July 2020
July 30 — “The Independent Accountability Oversight Committee appointed hearing panel members and the Complex Case Unit, which is comprised primarily of external investigators and external advocates.”
Aug. 2020
Aug. 19 — “Kansas submitted a letter regarding a potential conflict of interest or appearance of partiality regarding a hearing panel member.”
Sept. 2020
Sept. 16 — “The chief panel member submitted a response regarding the potential conflict of interest or appearance of partiality.”
Feb. 2021
Feb. 21 — “Kansas submitted a request related to attendance at on-campus interviews conducted by Complex Case Unit. On that same day, the chief panel member submitted a response to Kansas.”
Feb. 22 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a request for reconsideration.”
Feb. 24 — “The chief panel member submitted a response to the Complex Case Unit.”
March 2021
March 10 — “The chief panel member requested an update regarding the status on proposed scheduling deadlines.”
March 17 — “The parties submitted proposed scheduling deadlines.”
March 17 — “The Complex Case Unit and Kansas submitted a joint motion to separate allegations and make an expedited determination regarding two allegations.”
March 24 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a request to preserve evidence.”
April 2021
April 1 — “The chief panel member issued a case management plan.”
April 2021
April 2 — “The chief panel member provided a response to joint motion to separate allegations and make an expedited determination regarding two allegations.”
April 2021
April 8 — “The managing director of enforcement responded to the Complex Case Unit’s record request.”
April 14 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a motion to compel production of certain information.”
April 16 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a request regarding production of certain documents and proposed interview.”
April 19 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a request to extend and stay deadlines in the case management plan.”
April 23 — “The managing director of enforcement submitted a letter regarding production of certain documents.”
May 2021
May 3 — “The chief panel member confirmed receipt of correspondence and granted the Complex Case Unit’s request to stay deadlines in the case management plan.”
May 10 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a supplemental letter regarding production of certain documents.”
May 10 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a reply in further support of the motion to compel production of certain information.”
May 12 — “The chief panel member submitted a letter regarding receipt of correspondence.”
May 14 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a letter regarding a conference to resolve the outstanding disputes between the parties.”
May 19 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a letter regarding appearance of a conflict of interest.”
May 24 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a letter regarding appearance of a conflict of interest.”
May 26 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a response regarding appearance of a conflict of interest.”
June 2021
June 3 — “The chief panel member submitted a letter regarding receipt of correspondence.”
July 2021
July 14 — “The vice president of hearing operations submitted a letter regarding recusal.”
July 15 — “The NCAA vice president of hearing operations submitted a letter concerning potential or actual conflicts of interest.”
July 21 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a clarification regarding production of information.”
July 22 — “The chief panel member issued a decision related to the request to compel production of certain information.”
July 22 — “Counsel for the former head football coach submitted a letter to the chief panel member of intent to publicly disclose certain information.”
July 26 — “The chief panel member responded to the letter from the former head football coach regarding the intent to publicly disclose certain information.”
Aug. 2021
Aug. 4 — “The chief panel member held a status conference with the parties to discuss, among other things, the processing deadlines outlined in the case management plan.”
Aug. 9 — “The chief panel member issued an amended case management plan no. 1.”
Aug. 17 — “The head men’s basketball coach submitted correspondence regarding recusal.”
Aug. 19 — “The head men’s basketball coach requested an extension of the supplemental investigation period.”
Aug. 19 — “Kansas submitted a request for clarification of requests to compel certain documents.”
Aug. 23 — “The chief panel member issued an amended case management plan no 2.”
Aug. 25 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted correspondence related to the head men’s basketball coach’s response dated August 17, 2021, regarding recusal.”
Aug. 30 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a response regarding additional clarity and position regarding investigative matters.”