Congress Member Gives Explanation of Censure Resolutions Against CAA\

The controversy over allegations of corruption and misdeeds within the Carolina Athletic Association has come into Student Congress' court this week.

I have played a significant role in this development by introducing two censure resolutions this past Tuesday.

I would like to take time now to explain their content and why I introduced them.

The first resolution censures the leadership of the CAA for allowing "internal politics and personal differences to dominate the agenda of the CAA and eclipse the athletic concerns of the student body."

This resolution urges the next session of Congress, which will be inaugurated on April 4, to appoint a special committee to investigate allegation of corruption within past administrations.

The second resolution censures CAA President Tee Pruitt for presiding over an administration that has been plagued by numerous allegations accusing him of conduct unbefitting of an elected officer of the Student Body including, but not limited to:

n The dispensation of UNC's men's basketball tickets to non-UNC students

n Allowing non-UNC students to work ticket distribution in exchange for men's basketball tickets

n Participating in a quid-pro-quo exchange of home UNC men's basketball tickets for tickets to UNC games held away from home

n Improper use of student fees

n Dismissal of organizational staff for personal and/or political differences rather than poor job performance

n Unprofessional dismissal of organization staff

n Knowledge of or participation in the rigging of the men's basketball ticket distribution process

The resolution concludes by urging the student attorney general to investigate all the allegations mentioned in the resolution and any others brought to his attention by members of the student body and to prosecute offenders if sufficient evidence is uncovered.

I introduced these censure resolutions for several reasons.

First, the mere appearance of allegation after allegation during the course of Tee Pruitt's administration is enough to warrant a full investigation and has undoubtedly crippled the organizations ability to adequately fulfill its constitutional charge: to represent the athletic concerns of the student body.

Secondly, student confidence in the CAA to fairly distribute basketball tickets and represent the student body on athletic issues has all but disappeared.

This is the fault of Tee Pruitt and the leadership of the CAA during his administration.

A public investigation by the 83rd session of Student Congress that could result in Honor Court charges being brought would go a long ways to restore confidence in the organization.

Furthermore, it would allow CAA President-elect Reid Chaney to begin his administration without having to worry about the skeletons Tee Pruitt left behind.

Finally, the censure resolutions are not official sanctions nor do they carry binding consequences.

They are mere statements of disapproval for the way Tee Pruitt and the leadership of the CAA have represented the student body during their time in office.

More importantly though, they are a call to action to other institutions of student government to find the truth and a remedy for those who have been wronged be they individuals or the student body at large.

I ask any student who has evidence or knowledge that either proves or disproves allegations of wrongdoing leveled against Tee Pruitt or any other leader of the CAA to please contact me with this evidence and knowledge, so that ultimately, the truth may be known.

Rep. Anthony L. Larson

Student Congress

Junior

Public Policy Analysis and Religious Studies