Equity reports frustrate Ivy athletic depts.

Understanding and complying with new regulations can be a business's worst nightmare. The athletic departments of the Ivy League are no exception. In compiling the inaugural Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act reports, officials at several Ivy League schools, including Penn, have pointed out several problems with federal regulations associated with the act. Officials at the U.S. Department of Education, however, argued that the regulations are clear and said they aren't planning to change them. The EADA, a 1995 federal law, requires most universities with intercollegiate athletic programs to release extensive information on participation rates, expenses and average coaches' salaries for men's and women's varsity sports. The numbers indicate the extent to which a school complies with Title IX, a 1972 law requiring institutions that receive federal funds to provide equal resources for male and female athletes. Carolyn Schlie Femovich, Penn's senior associate athletic director, said the forms provided for salary disclosure failed to distinguish full-time from part-time assistant coaches. As a result, the average assistant coach's salary on the report does not accurately reflect the actual figures, Femovich said. "I think the numbers as a rule across the board, regardless of institution, are a little bit misleading," Femovich said. "When you look at the assistant coach salaries, you have to realize that they're definitely not all full-time positions." But David Lorenzo, a program specialist in the Education Department's General Provisions Branch, said athletic departments could have provided the breakdown of part-time and full-time assistant coaches' salaries. "They can always do that if they don't think that's giving a correct impression of what they're paying their people," Lorenzo said. Administrators at other Ivy League schools called for broad improvements in the EADA forms, saying much of the language was ambiguous. "Even in our league, there were different schools interpreting the directives differently," Dartmouth College Athletic Director Dick Jaeger said. "It all depended on how they and their counsels read the directions in the required report." Yale University Athletic Director Tom Beckett voiced similar concerns. "I think it would be a lot better for all concerned if the instrument that they're using clearly stated how they wanted it reported," Beckett said. But Carney McCullough, chief of the Education Department's General Provisions Branch, dismissed the idea that the forms detailing the regulations are vague. "We think that the regulations are very clear," McCullough said. "At the present time, we are not planning any sort of changes to those regulations." She added that schools have leeway in following the EADA forms and may provide any extra information they feel is necessary to explain certain figures. "Any type of information that is additional we would encourage," McCullough said. Athletics officials also complained that complying with the act required an excessive amount of administrative work. "It was a royal pain in the neck to assemble things," said Al Carlson, Columbia University's associate athletic director. But Carol Tracy, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Women's Law Project, said the positive aspects of the EADA greatly outweigh its flaws. "It may be that it could be more detailed," said Tracy, a Penn graduate and former Penn Women's Center director. "I'm surprised that [athletic directors] would want more." McCullough explained that although several schools were late in providing their reports by the October 1 deadline, no action would be taken against them. "This year we just wanted to make sure everybody does it," McCullough said. In subsequent years, the filing deadline will be October 15.