CONFIDENTIAL UCLA Compliance Investigation STUDENT-ATHLETE ADMISSIONS: COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT Director William H. Cormier Administrative Policies 8: Compliance Office July 1, 2014 CONFIDENTIAL CONTENTS I. INVESTIGATION SUMMARY 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 A. Scope of the Investigation 3 B. Applicable Policies or Rules 3 THE FACTS CONSIDERED 5 A. The Questionable Admissions Actions 5 The 2012-13 .Admissions Matter 5 The 2013?14IAdmissions Matter 6 Other Suspect Admissions Circumstances 8 B. The Interviews Conducted 9 Mother of.? 9, 11 Brandon Brooks 12 13 Grant Chen 14 - 15 Michael Maynard 16 17 IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 17 Findings on the Two Specific Admissions Actions 18 Findings Concerning Other Suspect Admissions Actions 19 EXHIBITS A-O I. INVESTIGATION SUMMARY An investigation was initiated to look into certain undergraduate student-athlete admissions actions of the UCLA Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. The investigation was prompted by an appeal of a UCLA Undergraduate Admissions decision brought by a mother whosedaughter had been considered through the student?athlete admission committee process and had been told she was admitted, but whose ?admission? was reversed when it was determined that it violated both University and Athletics Department policies. The issues presented concern the suspected violation of Regents Policy 2202, which prohibits admissions decisions motivated by an expectation that a financial benefit will accrue to a particular program, such as might occur if a family made a major donation in order to get a son or daughter admitted through the student athlete admissions process, and Athletic Department policy that precludes admitting student-athletes to be merely sport team managers. The subject admissions involved coaches with the men?s and women?s tennis, track and field, and water polo programs. Two specific admissions actions came to light and were the focus of this investigation. in one of the actions from the 2013-14 academic year, a student was coded in the Athletics Department?s admission system as an athlete in a sport in which she had no qualifying experience to compete and was then provisionally admitted as a team manager. That admissions process was halted. However, when the mother sought to appeal that decision, she revealed that she had retained a private educational counselor to assist her daughter in the college admissions process. That counselor had apparently advised the mother that the admission through the Athletics Department?s student? athlete process could be influenced by the offer to make a substantial donation to the program. She said she was told that this was a common practice. in the other action from the 2012-13 academic year, a student had been admitted under similar circumstances and the actions of the coaches were examined. A more general review was conducted of admissions in the tennis program over the past 10 years to see if there was any pattern of suspicious admissions action conduct. Records were examined and interviews were conducted The conclusion reached with respect to the 2012-13 student-athlete admissions action is that the coaches involved were motivated principally by the expectation of a financial benefit to the University, in violation of Regents policy. in addition, admitting the student to be a sport team manager violated Athletic Department policy and compounded the seriousness ofthe coaches? misconduct. Likewise, with respect to the 2013-14 admissions action, though the admission was halted, the actions proposed by the coaches involved violated Regents policy in initiating an admissions action that was motivated primarily by the anticipation of the financial benefit to the program and violated CONFIDENTIAL Athletics Department policy by processing the admission of student athlete who was to be a manager only. With respect to the more general review of tennis program admissions actions, the data examined did not reveal any instances where managers were admitted through the student-athlete admissions process or instances where donations from parents of walk-on athletes were received in such close proximity to the admission of the student as would warrant a finding that the Regents policy on financial benefits in admissions actions had been violated. For that reason, no specific findings were reached. However, the circumstances considered raise a concern about the potential for violations of the Regents policy that that needs to be addressed in departmental policy. In the admissions actions considered, there was no evidence that any of the coaches involved sought or received any personal ?nancial benefit from the families of the two students being considered for student-athlete admission or from any private educational counselor. II. BACKGROUND Female student applied for freshman admission to UCLA to begin_ 2014. Her mother, had engaged the services of private educational counselor to advise her and on college options and to assist. in the college admissions application process. RS learned thatlhad played high school - and knowing- he introduced. to- to see if there might be a position available for. on the? team. RS was aware of the family?s financial resources and that information was communicated to?. It turned out that there was no spot available on the- team and, instead,? was informed by UCLA coaching staff that she would be considered for a ?walk-on? position on the women?s water polo team. Assistant Men?s Tennis Coach Grant Chen then introduce. to UCLA Women?s Water Polo Coach Brandon Brooks who agreed to consider her for a player or manager ?w..hthawmd Coach Brooks submitted her application to the student-athlete admission committee process. On December 15, mother was informed by RS thatl?s admission was ?certain? and in January 2014, RS reported to. and her mother that she ?was in.? However, in April. learned that her admission application had been rejected and, subsequently, her mother began contacting RS, who informed her that he would appeal the decision. By mother learned from RS that the appeal (which had never been made to UCLA Admissions officials) was unsuccessful. in early May, after the expiration of appeal period for freshman admissions,-s mother contacted UCLA officials seeking an explanation and further appeal of the decision. In a phone conversation on May 13, 2014,_ explained to CONFIDENTIAL "5 mother that Athletics Department coaches mistakenly presented. for student-athlete admission consideration as a women?s water polo team manager. The mistake was that Athletics Department policy does not accept student-athlete applications for team manager positions. instead, the Athletics Department requires that student-athlete applicants have relevant athletic qualifications for the sport for which they are being recruited. During that mother said she had been told by RS that if her daughter was to be admitted as a student-athlete the family would be expected to make a substantial donation to the program and that such arrangements were a common practice in the Athletics Department. The assertion that donations by a family might influence an admissions decision prompted this review. A. Scope of the Investigation The Administrative Policies Compliance Office (hereinafter, ?compliance office?) is responsible for coordinating investigations into allegations of suspected improper governmental activity, meaning generally, suspected violations of federal or State laws or regulations, but including reviews of suspected University or local campus policy violations when significant matters are at issue. Reports of suspected improprieties may be made by University employees, students, or members ofthe public and may be made anonymously. Acting on behalf of the University, the compliance office has full discretion to determine the extent of the due diligence inquiry that may be warranted, how the inquiry is to be conducted, and who needs to be involved. Such ?due diligence? investigations into suspected improprieties are to be distinguished from the more or less formal complaint fact?finding processes that a University student or faculty or staff member may initiate pursuant to a specific complaint administrative process in seeking some form of personal remedy or redress for the allegedly wrongful actions of another member of the University community. In that regard, and with respect to the subject matter of this investigation, whatever specific appeal options a student may have with respect to an unfavorable admissions decision, such appeal options are outside the scope of matters being considered in this investigation. The Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs referred the concerns raised byI?s mother to the Director of the compliance office who serves as the UCLA Locally Designated Official for Whistleblower Policy matters. The Associate Athletic Director Compliance participated in several of the interviews, and he and his staff assisted in producing evidentiary records and documents. The investigation was primarily focused on examining two specific student-athlete admissions actions. However, the circumstances of those actions led to a more limited review of about ten other admissions actions looking for suspicious patterns of conduct. B. Applicable Policies or Rules The issues considered here do not concern violations of federal or State laws or regulations nor NCAA rules, but rather University and departmental policies and common ethical standards. CONFIDENTIAL University Board of Regents Policy 2202 (?Policy Barring Development Considerations from Influencing Admissions Decisions?), affirming a statement of the Academic Senate's Board on Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS), provides that admissions motivated by concern for financial, political or other such benefit to the University do not have a place in the admissions process. According to that policy, no coach or other University official may arrange or seek to create an arrangement with the family of a student?athlete to admit the student in return for some significant financial contribution that the family pledges to make to the program. Such quid pro quo arrangements violate the University?s admissions standards. Also a cause for concern would be the actions of a coach seeking to admit a student with limited athletic ability or experience in the sport because of the known financial resources of the student?s family and an expectation that some substantial future financial contribution to the program may be realized. In addition, the practice of the Athletics Department is to require that any student provisionally admitted through the student?athlete admissions committee process be qualified athletically and be expected to play for the team recruiting the student as a ?walk?on? and for at least the first year after admission. More generally, Regents Policy 1111 (?Policy on Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct?) applicable to all members of the University community and specifying a commitment to the ethical conduct of all University activities is relevant as well. Two core values have particular relevance here: 1. Fair Dealing. Members of the University community are expected to conduct themselves ethically, honestly, and with integrity in all dealings. This means principles of fairness, good faith, and respect consistent with laws, regulations, and University policies govern our conduct with others both inside and outside the community. Each situation needs to be examined in accordance with the Standards of Ethical Conduct. No unlawful practice or a practice at odds with these standards can be justified on the basis of customary practice, expediency, or achieving a ?higher? purpose. 2. Individual Responsibility and Accountability. Members of the University community are expected to exercise responsibility appropriate to their position and delegated authorities. They are responsible to each other, the University, and the University?s stakeholders both for their actions and their decisions not to act. Each individual is expected to conduct the business of the University in accordance with the Core Values and the Standards of Ethical Conduct, exercising sound judgment and serving the best interests of the institution and the community. CONFIDENTIAL THE FACTS CONSIDERED The compliance office of the Athletic Department provided the dates and related admission actions information for the several student?athletes whose circumstances of admission and family donations were examined as part of this review. In addition, email records of the parties were obtained and reviewed to further document actions relating to the admissions ofland I, the two main admissions cases being examined. Certain of these documents have been attached as exhibits. Interviews were conducted in person and via telephone of Athletics Department staff, parents of several students and one student applicant, and the private educational consultant who assisted the student applicant. Names and titles of relevant Athletics Department staff appear as Exhibit A. A. The Questionable Admissions Actions The focus of this investigation is on two specific admissions actions, one during the 2012?13 academic year involving- I and the other during the 2013?14 academic year involving?I- in addition, a broader review was done of admissions in the tennis program over a ten-year period to determine whether there was evidence that the expectation of a financial benefit had influenced an admission decision. As part of this review, Athletics Department compliance staff reviewed lists of admitted student athletes from recent years and identified a number of instances where the families of walk?on athletes made substantial donations to the program under circumstances that might suggest the donations were expected at the time the student was admitted. THE 2012?13. ADMISSIONS MATTER The suspect admissions action of early 2014 that prompted this investigation was preceded by a similar admissions action that occurred in 2013. Concerning that earlier matter, on- 2013, female student-was approved for UCLA freshman admission by the Athletics Admissions Committee-s recruitment as a potential UCLA Track Field student-athlete had been initiated by Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach Grant Chen coordinating with Director of Track Field and Cross Country Michael Maynard. Department records show that?.was coded in the Athletic Coding System (ACS) by Maynard as a-level Track athlete and potential Track program contributor with an admissions status of (Exhibit B). On the same day as the coding, however, sent an email to Chen attaching sample donation pledges intended for the parents of I in the amounts of $80,000 and $100,000 (Exhibit C). That suggested that. was being admitted because the parents had committed to making a donation. Maynard?s role in soliciting that donation and specifying the amount is unclear. That suggestion was all but confirmed when on- 2013, CONFIDENTIAL three days after-was notified of her admission, Chen sent an email to-with the subject line "Track Gift Agreements,? stating: ?We got a deal at $25 four years for track? (Exhibit D). Two weeks later, Track and Field Director of Operations - eevee an email from. pere? forwarded the email to Chen along with the comment: ?i already like her more than my current managers.? (Exhibit E.) however. ere decision was made by Maynard that she would be a manager. The timing of-?s admission and the verbal pledge obtained by Chen from the parents, together with the revelation that she was intended to be only a manager, in violation of department recruitment and admission policy, removes any reasonable doubt that the contribution from the parents was obtained quid pro quo for the daughter?s admission. It is to be noted that Chen had a long?association with .and her family and that it was he who promoted this admissions action based on that relationship, as he conceded when interviewed. He expressed to Maynard his personal appreciation for the opportunity created for-and offers to "do anything/everything to return the favor? (Exhibit . Lastly, there is Maynard?s? email to the parents representing his first personal acknowledgment of their generous financial gift and asking for an opportunity to meet with the parents. (Exhibit H). it appears from this that Maynard had not previously met with the parents of.. THE MATTER The second such admissions action being examined relates to the recruitment of prospective student~athletelwho applied for freshman admission to mother had retained the services of private educational counselor R5 in the summer of 2013 to advise her and. on college options and to assis' in the college admissions application process. This ?college coach? was aware that-had played high school-. When the family decided to apply to UCLA he offered to arrange an introductory meeting with?, whom he had known for some time, to consider whether there might be a position available for. on the team. An introductory meeting was arranged, and-and her mother met at UCLA with coaches-and Chen late in October 2013. CONFIDENTIAL However,- later learned from_ that there was no spot available on the_ team for someone entering in the Fall 2014 freshman class. -called to inform .and her mother of this but also to say that. could be considered for a position on the women?s water polo team, which needed scholar-athletes. Chen then introduced. to UCLA Women?s Water Polo Coach Brandon Brooks at a December 4, 2013 meeting in Brooks office in the Athletics Department?s Morgan Center. Coach Brooks offered to consider her for a player or manager position with the team. I who had no high school water polo playing experience, sent a December 4, 2013 email to RS thanking him for setting up the meeting for her at UCLA with Brooks, asking him whether she should have herself listed as a player or a manager, and requesting that he review her draft thank you email to Brooks. RS responds that she should tell Brooks that she ?will be listed either way. . . I have a friend of? that can create a pro?le if needed for polo.? (Exhibit I dd send dead a thank eman? On December 13, 2013 Brooks acknowledged the email? He then forwarded the email exchange to Chen who responded saying: hanks man . . . Appreciate it . . . I?ll handle the other thing. . . . How does Nov 2014, Nov 2015, Nov 2016, Nov 2017 sound for each one??(Exhibit J). Chen then emailed a request to_: ?Can you write me up a commitment letter . . . per year, for 4 years . . . Paid Nov 2014, Nov 2015, Nov 2016, Nov 2017 . . . to the Women?s Water Polo program. . . . I don?t know if it?s going to happen but would like to have paperwork ready in case.? (Exhibit K). Coach Brooks then codetl?s application information in the ACS as a. level athlete for consideration by the athletics admission committee and included the comment . On January 27, 2014, Brooks emailed Chen that-has been taken through admissions and had been accepted. That information was passed along to RS, who left a voicemail, also on January 27th, informing-that she had been approved by the committee but that she would have to wait until April to receive her formal acceptance via the UCLA Admissions online notification system. However, on or about March 21, 2014 during a second-step review of the coding information describing-s background, the Athletics Department?s compliance staff discovered that. did not have the requisite water polo playing experience to justify her admission to the program as a ?walk- on.? That is,'was improperly coded as a Senior Athletics Department admissions review staff discussed the matter with Brooks and learned that he actually intended to use. as a manager and not as a walk-on. Since the department?s policy does not permit special admissions for a student who is to be a manager only, and since it does not permit CONFIDENTIAL admitting a student who lacks the athletic experience and ability to compete in the team?s sport, the admission process for. was halted. UCLA Undergraduate Admissions was informed, and the rejection ofI?s admission application was noted in the online notification system After working to prosecute an appeal through RS with no success, I?s mother sought to contact UCLA officials for an explanation of the admissions decision. She first contacted confirmed the decision by the UCLA Admissions office not to admitland referredl?s mother to? for a further explanation of the Athletics Department?s actions. In a phone conversation on May 13, 2014,? explained to "5 mother that Athletics Department coaches mistakenly presented. for student-athlete admission consideration as a women?s water polo team manager. However, had she been proposed as a walk- on athlete she still would not have been admitted because the Athletics Department only accepts for special admission student-athletes who have the relevant athletic qualifications to compete in the sport sponsoring them. During this conversation the mother stated she was ?still willing to pay.? When asked to what she was mother explained that she understood from RS that she was expected to donate to the program, for the admission of her daughter through athletics. OTHER SUSPECT ADMISSIONS Aside from the two specific admissions cases identified above, the Athletics Department compliance staff revieWed all men?s tennis student athlete admits from 2004 t02014, classified as having either good,? or ?limited? tennis athletic ability. A total of 54 men?s tennis student athlete II II ?excellent, admits were identified; 10 of those students were classified as- Then, with Athletic Department fund-raising information, the compliance staff identified- students whose parents had made significant contributions to the men?s tennis program.? Of these-, RS had been retained by at least two of the families to advise and assist in the college application process. The fact that significant donations were made to the tennis programs in each case by the student?s family for a relatively high percentage of the student?s classified as suggested a pattern of admissions actions that were influenced by the expectation that the family would likely contribute to the program. The involvement of R5 in these admission instances, as he was in the. admission matter, adds to this concern. In addition, in none ofthese cases is there evidence that the donation or a commitment to donate occurred at or about the time of the student?s admission. Nevertheless, the pattern suggests that an expectation that a donation might be forthcoming was a factor in the decision to admit. CONFIDENTIAL B. The Interviews Conducted Telephone interviews were conducted with the mother ofl, whose appeal on behalf of her daughter?s rejected admission application had revealed the suspected impropriety, and the mother of.. The LDO then conducted in-person interviews with the Women?s Water Polo Head Coach Brandon Brooks,?, Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach Grant Chen, Track a Hana Head Coach Michael Mama?c and . Coaches - and Chen were each interviewed a second time with Athletic Department?s Associate Athletic Director Compliance Matt Elliott participating in conducting those interviews. Telephone interviews were conducted with RS and several of the parents who had been identi?ed as significant contributors to the tennis programs. The following are summaries of these interviews. .5 mother was interviewed in the Murphy Hall compliance office on May 16, 2014.. described her daughter-?s high school background and accomplishments-v I?s mother was asked about her connection to RS.-saic- understood that it would be dif?cult to get. placed and so she decided to get an independent counselor to advise them. She said that RS had been referred to her by a physician friend and she that contacted him to provide counseling for. which started in the summer of 2013. She said she paid RS a flat fee of $6,000 for his services, which included counseling sessions every other week. Asked about what representations RS had mother said he only promised advice and feedback and that he could make no promises about getting. into a particular school. l?s mother said that at these meetings she and her daughter went over her academic and extracurricular high school activities with RS.-was considering applying to several colleges, including UCLA. She said that when .talked about her interest in UCLA at one of the sessions, RS mentioned that he knew and that he was willing to contact- to ask about an introductory meeting..s mother said that he also advised her that ?they expect you will support the program.? She said he ?strongly encouraged? her to be prepared to contribute. She said she asked RS about what amount would be expected and he said $100,000. mother said she understood R5 to say that ?some of this donation would go to UCLA directly? and some to the coaches through his company. She said RS told her she should expect to support UCLA athletics once I was admitted. She said she understood this because the parents of high school athletes are all expected to support the booster programs. CONFIDENTIAL I?s mother said that- did call her daughter to invite her to meet with him to explore "her goal of attending She and her daughter did meet at UCLA with- and Chen on October 26, 2013. She said I?s quali?cations were discussed . She said that at the meeting-said he knew RS well, that he had found him many great scholar athletes, and that he was impressed with ?s grades, test scores, and athletic history. He also said he had discussed. with her high school- coach, mother said the meeting ended with- telling them thatl?s ?le looked good and that he would let RS follow up with them..?s mother said that RS did follow up and told her that the meeting with -went well and the. application would now have to go through the pre? approval process. However, she said that about 2-3 weeks later RS called back to tell them that- was full.? He explained that there were no open positions available on the- team but that the women?s water polo team needed scholar athletes. He said that arrangements would be made for I to be introduced to the women?s water polo coach. Chen then called and emailed. to set up a meeting with Women?s Water Polo Coach Brandon Brooks. This meeting with. took place on December 4, 2013.-s mother said she understood that in order for-to be a scholar-athlete in water polo, Brooks would have to meet with. and determine she was "appropriate.? She saidl?s meeting with Brooks was short and that they discussed whether. wanted to be considered as a player or as a manager for the team."s mother said she knew that. had mailed Brooks early in December that it might be best if she was listed as a manager since she had no actual water polo playing experience. I?s mother provided a photocopy of a text message she received from RS on December 15, 2013. The message from RS says ?From_ . . . Just wanted to let you know everything is all set for-]. She will be presented at the January admissions meeting, and there is no question she will be approved without a second thought. HAPPY l? (Exhibit M). Thenl?s mother referred to a voicemail message that RS left for her about the end of January saying that. had been accepted for UCLA, "she is now in? and that she will get her acceptance letter like everyone else. .5 mother said it was in early April while she was away i- that she learned that-had not been accepted. She said that'had told her that all her friends had received decision noti?cations online and when she checked the online system she found out she had not been admitted. She emailed RS from- to inquire what had happened. She said RS emailed back to her that the coaches would be trying to appeal the decision. She said that on about April 28th.got a message from RS saying they had lost on appeal. According tol?s mother It was then that sheisent a letter to an official from ?5 high school. The of?cial forwarded the letter on to UCLA- . The undated letter is addressed to the UCLA Admissions Committee and is intended as an appeal of the admissions decision for. (Exhibit N). 10 CONFIDENTIAL ll R5 was interviewed over the phone on May 22, 2013. He described himself as the founder of a private college counseling company. The company employs ?coilege coaches? that provide private one-on-one assistance to high school students in selecting the right college, assisting in preparing college applications, and in helping to position the students to get admitted. RS said that over 26 years he has had over 180,000 graduates and that his ?students? come from all over, including from China, Russia and India. He said he has many private college coaches working for him. With respect to his arrangement withl?s mother, RS said it was a standard agreement that began August 1, 2013 and was to continue through the admission period. He confirmed his fee paid up front was $6,000. He said he received no other compensation from "s mother beyond the ?at fee. He said he held counseling sessions with. every other week, reviewing her high school resume, preparing lists of potential college choices, and preparing application materials, including editing application essays when needed. RS said he makes it clear to his clients that he can make no promises about a student getting into a particular college. He has the students and their family list potential colleges to apply to and helps them distinguish ?safe schools? from ?stretch schools,? the latter meaning those colleges that an applicant cannot reasonably count on getting accepted into. RS said thatl?s mother was dif?cult to deal with and that she had unrealistic expectations about I?s admissions chances. He said he counseled her that-should not expect to get into most of the schools on her list, which included He said I?s mother wanted .to apply to these schools anyway. He said these were all ?stretch schools? fol, . He said she did not take his advice that'should be applying to more ?safety schools.? RS explained that wher. and her mother ranked UCLA as first on their list, he mentioned that he knew? and because-played high school-s he would see if would be willing to meet.. He explained that he proposed to contact because he did not know RS said he brought up the issue of expected donations to the Athletic Program if. were admitted. He said he put it this way tol?s mother, ?if someone helps you, it would be good if you to help them back.? He told her that if. were admitted to the program, the family should plan to contribute to it ?as a show of appreciation.? He said he would give that advice to any family. He said thatl?s mother pressed him to specify the expected amount, that he resisted stating a number, but that after she persisted he suggested a gift donation of $100,000 would be appropriate. He said he later told her ?$150,000 - what do you think?? He denied representing to her that such an amount was a way to buy-?s admission. When asked what he would have expected to get from the mother or the coaches had such a donation been made, he said emphatically, ?not one dime.? 11 CONFIDENTIAL When asked what he communicated to -, RS said he describe. qualifications and told? that ?if the family got in, I am sure they would be most gracious.? He denied mentioning a specific amount. He also denied that there was any arrangement where he or the coaches were to get some portion of any donation that was made. When asked about the other UCLA athletes whose families had been identified as having made significant donations to the Athletic Department, he identified one as one of ?my students? but said he did not recognize the other names. BRANDON BROOKS Women?s Water Polo Coach Brandon Brooks was interviewed in the Murphy Hall compliance office on May 16, 2014. Coach Brooks said he took over coaching the women?s water polo program about five years ago. He said that in late November or early December 2013 Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach Grant Chen approached him aboutl. He said Coach Chen described. as a great student-athlete who might be able to help out and that her parents_ had the wherewithal to support the program. Coach Chen offered to arrange for him to mee'. Coach Brooks thought that I may have been a family friend of Coach Chen. Coach Brooks met with. in his office and learned that'did not have any water polo playing experience. However, she told him that she would be willing to support the team in a manager capacity. He said she seemed intelligent and eager to help the women?s water polo program in any . He said he was looking to better expand his player base? He said his meeting witl. lasted about ten minutes. Coach Brooks said he asked? whether UCLA could admit a student for a manager position and was told that UCLA does not do that. However, he believed that he could still enter-into the Athletics Coding System. Brooks said he did enter-?5 information in the ACS system with the comment_ He said that-passed the pre-meeting step near the end ofJanuary and since he did not know of anyone who was accepted at the pre?meeting step ofthe process who did not get admitted, he assumed that. had been admitted. He said he let Coach Chen know. However, Coach Brooks said he got an email from. late in March asking whether-actually plays water polo and what her position is proposed to be on the team. He said he met with- to discuss the situation and was told the admission action had to be halted. Coach Brooks said he told Coach Chen about the problem and then called -, who said he would inform the family. Asked about involvement, Coach Brooks said he had never met RS and didn?t know about involvement until the week of this interview with him. 12 CONFIDENTIAL was first interviewed on May 17, 2014,? A second interview with -was held? on June 6, 2014. The Associate Athletic Director Compliance Matt Elliott assisted in the second interview-has been. coach since- and- prior to that served as an assistant- .- said he had known R5 for about 10 years? -said he had received a call from RS during the fall of 2013 about'. He said RS described-s background and told him that he thought that she might be a good candidate for the women?s tennis team. He said RS described the family?s situation and that they could be expected to support the program if. were admitted but that RS did not discuss any commitment amount.- said he told RS that he wanted to checkl?s- credentials? first and then meet with. before presenting her to - said he and Chen met witl' and her mother_ and the discussion was all aboutl?s qualifications and interest in coming to UCLA-said when he told- - about. and their meeting, he learned there were no spots left on the- - team. However, he said he remembered hearing from. that she had some connection to water polo. Based on that he decided to refer-to Coach Brooks. He said he reminded Brandon that he (Brandon) ?can?t get her in as a manager? and that she ?must be on the roster for a year.? - said he callerl?s mother and let her and .know that there were no positions available on the- team but that Coach Chen wanted to introduce-to the water polo coach. He said it was Grant who then introduced her to Coach Brooks as a potential candidate for the water polo team. -said that some time later Chen showed him a proposed donation! pledge letter tol?s mother that? had prepared at Chen?s request. - said he was really upset with Chen for proposing to obtain such a commitment during the admissions process and that he ripped up the letter. He said what Chen was about to do was ?so egregiously wrong.? -confirmed that he never discussed a commitment amount for-?5' mother with RS. He said he would never get into such a discussion with the family of a student-athlete during the admissions process. Once a student has been admitted, if a parent approaches him about making a donation he said his standard response is ?anything you might consider contributing would be gratefully appreciated.? Asked whether RS compensated him in any way for any of his students that had been admitted to the program,- said ?absolutely not.? He said he understood that RS charges his clients a fee for his services but that he had never asked and did not know how much RS charges. 13 CONFIDENTIAL - was asked if he was aware of any donations that RS may have made to the University and responded that he did not recall any. GRANT CHEN Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach Grant Chen was ?rst interviewed on May 17, 2014? . Coach Chen was interviewed a second time- on June 6, 2014, and Associate Athletic Director - Compliance Matt Elliott assisted with the interview. Asked about his connection to., Chen said he did not know her until he and- met with. and her mother at UCLA last fall (the October 26, 2013 meeting.)- . Chen said he regards himself as always trying to be helpful and that when he heard that. had played-, he just wanted to help out. He said he recalled that-had been involved in track and water polo in addition to tennis. When told she had not described any water polo playing experience, he said he recalled-saying something about water polo when he and- met with her. He said that after that initial meeting witl. and her mother,-contacted the high school to ask aboutl?s background and quali?cations. Asked about his association with R5, Chen said he knows the name and would recognize RS. He said he has seen him maybe 8-10 times in 15 years. He said he knows that RS knows -, but that Chen has no direct relationship with RS and does not communicate with him. Chen said he never communicated with R5 abou. He said that at the initial meeting with. and her mother, name did not come up. Asked about the pledge letter he had asked?to prepare forl?s mother, Chen said he frequently talks with that he understands that raising funds is part of the job of a coach and that he likes to be ?proactive? and ?run with it.? He said it was to be a general pledge letter and denied talking tol?s mother about any speci?c pledge. He said he had not communicated with the mother since that first meeting. He admitted that he ?really jumped the gun? on that one. He said that when he took the letter ?corrected me right away? and tore up the letter. Asked about. in the second interview, Chen explained that-was a family friend.- ?Hesaw hadmore is "a great kid.? He said he wanted to see her succeed and be a ?successful Bruin.? Chen said he also knows the girl?s father?, and the mother? Asked why he would be preparing such pledge letters during the admissions process, Chen said his understanding was that if he can help the program one way or another, he should do it. He said he knew that the parents wanted to help out the track program. He said they made their actual 14 CONFIDENTIAL commitment after-was admitted. With respect the. recruitment, Chen said he made a mistake asking that a pledge letter be prepared, and ?-slapped my hand." Asked whether it is proper to propose that a recruit be admitted as a team manager, he conceded ?probably not,? and said that if admitted the student needs ?at least a season on the team.? He said neither he nor- have ever brought a student onto team in any role other than as a player. When it was suggested that the-and-situations represented a pattern, Chen said-and. were not the same situation. Chen was asked what bene?t accrues to men?s tennis by referring these two students to the water polo coach and to the track field coach, and he said doesn?t benefit me in any way." When asked whether he was involved in any of the referrals that - had made to?, Chen said he never handled-Vs recruits. Chen also said he was not involved in donations made by parents of the several other men?s tennis players that the Athletics Department compliance staff had identi?ed. was interviewec- on June 13, 2014. Associate Athletic Director Compliance Matt Elliott assisted in this interview. was asked about? walk-ons whose families had made significant donations to. program. She explained that walk-ons get athletic potential ratings, from A to C, and academic performance ratings, from P-1 to P-3. She said, in general, walk-ons must come to play as part of the team, but they must also must be special persons with top academic ratings. 15 CONFIDENTIAL Concerning the donations made by the parents of the-students,_ explained that she needed to raise about a year to support the special travel and equipment needs of the program. She said they all the athletic programs need such support, but that she would never talk about donations with parents before- was admitted. She said she understood that to do so "would be considered improper.? She said the most she would say is that she hopes the family can be supportive and we would wait until after the student was participating and happy with the program and the family could feel part of the program before talking about a gift donation. Lastly,? she was aware that student-athletes cannot be admitted to be managers and that the Athletics Department can only sponsor the admission of students who are expected be on the team for at least a year. When asked if she was approached about a spot for. on the- team?said she did not recall being asked about that. MICHAEL MAYNARD Director of Track 8: Field and Cross Country Michael Maynard was interviewed in his of?ce on May 23, 2014. Maynard was asked about the admission of student-in-2013, the decision that she would be carried as a manager, and the pledged donations from the family that started in Maynard said it was Chen who came to him to talk about-and her track experience. He said they may have met to discuss. one other time and that he told Chen that he was willing to ?code? her as a walk-on. He said he didn?t recall when she was coded but that most of the coding is done before the first Wednesday in February of the year and that it would have been done before April. Maynard said she was coded -academically and he was willing to consider her as a walk-on. He said she was then approved for admission and that Chen must have notified the parents. He said it was only after her approval that he would learn that ?she was not as billed." Maynard said that Chen then informed him that the family was willing to make a donation to the program. He said Chen was really adamant that Maynard not pull back on the admission. Maynard decided that she could be a manager. He said the prospect of a donation was not the impetus for that. Asked when he first knew of the family?s donation, he said he could not recall but he did know about it at least by the time the first commitment check arrived in- 2013. in an email from Chen to Maynard dated May 6, 2013, Chen stated ?l have a copy of the ?nancial pledge contribution from the- family . . . I will slip it under your door? (Exhibit 0). Asked to explain why he decided to accept-as a manager, Maynard said it was a form of ?damage control,? since-and her family had already been informed she was admitted and he did not want to have to reverse that. He said he ?wasn?t trying to circumvent the admissions process.? CONFIDENTIAL Maynard said he could not recall when he decided that. would be a manager and when he learned of the donation from the family. He said that he never talked to the parents and that it would not be until April 2014 that he belatedly acknowledged their generous gift. He said he was interviewed on May 2014,? chc? programs. he had not been involved in the actions relating to the admissions applications of prospective student-athlete] and-. He also explained he had been unaware of-s admission problem and the related issues that had surfaced until he was informed by? the previous week in connection with this investigation. The focus of the interview with -was on background organizational matters, fund-raising generally, and the allocation of scholarship differences -.- did say that he had never heard of private college admissions counselor RS until the briefing by-the previous week. He was not present during the interviews of- and Chen IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The principle articulated in Regents Policy 2202 is clear: ?admissions motivated by concern for financial, political or other such benefit to the University do not have a place in the admissions process.? Applying that principle to the admissions of. in 2013 and the proposed admission 0. in 2014 is reasonably straightforward. However, drawing conclusions about the motivations of coaches and other administrators in the other tennis programs admissions circumstances reviewed herein is more complicated. The Athletics Department?s policy prohibiting the admission of student?athletes to be sport team managers only, and the corollary requirement that any student athlete admitted is expected to play for the team for at least a year is not complicated. All the coaches interviewed expressed familiarity with the department?s policy. The extent to which development administrators, team directors of operations, or other Athletics Department staff were aware of this policy remains unclear. Findings with respect to assigning responsibility for certain actions will depend on the extent to which the individuals knew or should have known of the policy requirements. The responsibility for promulgating the Regents Policy statement rests with the UCLA Admissions Office. However, interpreting the policy and providing guidance applicable to student-athlete admissions decisions is the special responsibility of the Athletics Department. Without such guidance it is to be expected 17 CONFIDENTIAL that coaches and staff will be uncertain ofthe status ofthe policy as a basic and unqualified ethical principle to govern all University admissions and its applicability in particular circumstances. For that reason, the statements below regarding responsibility and culpability for certain actions should not be considered final. More generally, findings relating to assigning responsibility and culpability for certain actions should take into account the University?s ?Policy on Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct? (Regents Policy 1111). The core value of ?Individual Responsibility and Accountability? is especially relevant to the actions considered herein of several of the coaches and staff who were assisting. Admissions issues were exacerbated because coaches and some staff did not ?exercise responsibility appropriate to their position and delegated authorities? and did not act responsibly toward ?each other, the University, and the University stakeholders both for their actions and their decisions not to act.? It is to be noted that all employees are required to complete the University?s online training on ethical values. FINDINGS ON THE TWO SPECIFIC ADMISSIONS ACTIONS Concerning the 2012-13 action admitting student. the following facts are not in dispute:- was notified of her admission on- 2013; previously,- Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach Chen had requested that_ prepare pledge forms for the parents; on- 2013, Chen confirmed he had a deal with the parents of. for a year for four years (though they had not signed pledge forms); and on expressed thanks to? ?ior their previous week?- Relying on the facts that a ?deal? was confirmed three days after the admission and within a week of that. understands she is to be a manager, it is concluded that the admission of-was motivated principally by the expectation of a financial benefit to the University. Chen is credible in explaining that he was motivated in part, at least, by a friendship with his regard for the student, and his desire to see her become part ofthe Bruin family. However, that explanation does not excuse his culpability as, in effect, agent for Director of Track Field Maynard in securing the financial benefit in connection with this admission action in violation of University policy. The fact that. was admitted with the understanding that she was to be team manager compounds the seriousness of the violation. I Maynard bears principal responsibility since as head coach he was responsible for proposing the admission acceptance, the coding entry, and he knew or should have known of the arrangements that Chen was proposing. The involvement of- was not examined. Chen?s involvement is further considered below. With respect to the 2013-14 action that considered the admission ofl, the following facts are not in disputezlwas referred to the Women?s Water Polo Head Coach Brooks although she had no 18 CONFIDENTIAL credible water polo playing experience;. had made that clear to Brooks by December 5, 2013, if not earlier; on December 13, 2013, emails from Chen to Brook_ confirm that Chen was preparing to solicit or assist others in soliciting a commitment of a year for four years to the water polo program from the mother tore up the proposed commitment letter when Chen presented it to him; when Brooks coded her in the system, he failed to disclose that. was being considered as a manager for water polo only, which led to the provisional admissions approval that later had to be reversed. As head coach, Brooks bears principal responsibility for the'admission action.- may bear some responsibility for referring-to water polo without first vettingl?s qualifications more carefully, but Brooks was ultimately responsible for that. -bears some responsibility for actions taken or not taken in response to information that RS passed along to him about any expectation that-s mother was prepared to support the program.? Ultimate responsibility for these series of actions must rest with head coach Brooks. Assessing the responsibility and culpability of Chen in both of these matters is more complicated. Chen is the connection between these two improper admissions actions and but for his involvement we can conclude that these improper admissions actions would most likely not have occurred. He is an assistant coach who was operating outside his area of coaching responsibility in promoting financial benefits for the programs of two other head coaches. Clearly, he was aware of the financial resources of the two families, and he concedes he was prepared to help these other programs in any way he could. He did communicate with parents, whom he described as family friends, about making a donation around the time of her acceptance. In the'case there is no evidence that he communicated directly with either. orl?s mother concerning any donation solicitation, though clearly he had intended for the mother to be contacted when he prepared the letter that -later tore up. A potentially mitigating factor is that he is a young head coach with the least experience of the head coaches considered here. Chen had no authority to effect either of these actions on his ovxfn; that he was able to persuade each of these two head coaches to pursue a clearly improper course of action should be a significant concern to the department. There is no evidence that Chen personally benefitted from these actions. However, even if Chen?s intentions were not selfish, he clearly should have realized that his actions were improper. There is no evidence that any of the coaches involved in these two admissions actions received any personal financial benefit from the families of the two students being considered for student-athlete admission or from any private educational counselor. FINDINGS CONCERNING OTHER SUSPECT ADMISSIONS ACTIONS None of the other tennis program admissions actions identified by the department?s compliance staff for further review as potentially troublesome involved the admission of a student as a 19 CONFIDENTIAL manager. The Athletics Department?s policy on that point is not relevant to these admissions actions. instead, here the review was focused solely on whether these tennis program admissions actions involving student-athletes classified as ?limited? were motivated by the expectation that a financial benefit would result to the program. However, in each of these instances the benefit was realized some time after the student had been admitted. in the cases identified of significant donations made by the parents of walk-on athletes in the men?s and women's tennis programs, the athletics admission dates for the athletes were compared to the date of a commitment pledge or the actual donation where there had been no previous pledge. The results of this review showed that the ?earliest? a pledge or donation was received was 8 months after the admissions decision. Without any evidence that a commitment was made nearer in time to the admissions action there is no basis to definitively conclude that the admission was motivated by an expectation of a financial benefit to the program. Further, there were no identified cases in the tennis programs of prospective student~athlete walk?ans being admitted as managers. Accordingly, specific wrongdoing could not be substantiated in these cases based on the review that was conducted of the department?s admissions and donations information. Nevertheless, the circumstances of these admissions raise potential concerns that should be addressed. There are a number of subjective factors involved in a coach?s decision to recruit a potential walk?on athlete that would make it difficult in any particular case to confirm that the primary motivation of the admissions action was the expectation that there would be a financial benefit to the program. Apparently, there is no written policy that establishes the limits of what a coach may or may not consider in the recruiting of walk-on athletes. The department should consider formally establishing a fund?raising "moratorium? that would preclude any coach or department representative from discussing, soliciting or accepting any financial benefit from the family of a prospective student, or person or entity acting for the family, at any time during the recruitment of the student and for some set period after the student has been enrolled. This concludes the investigation into certain student?athlete admissions actions of the UCLA Department of intercollegiate Athletics. The cooperation and assistance that was provided by Athletics Department compliance staff in this investigation has been appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Wfl?am h. Wmier, Director UCLA Administrative Policies Compliance Office Avg 1, 2W DateU 20 EXHIBIT A RELEVANT UCLA STAFF Brandon Brooks is Head Coach of UCLA Women?s Water Polo. Grant Chen is an Assistant Coach of UCLA Men?s Tennis. . Michael Maynard is Head Coach of UCLA Track 8: Fieid. i Form AC8 Ath etics View EXHIBIT 3 UCLA Priority Coding Process Prospemame: - spam SAT Critical Reading: - ACT: - SAT Math: - SAT: - SAT Written: - Core GPA: - ACT Composite: . GPA: - ACT English: - Admissions Status: I ACT Math: - Transcript Status: ACT Reading: - ACT Science: I ACT Written: I Academic Notes: Current Priority Code: A Change Priority Code To: Reason for the Change I Save Without Subr?tting Request 7 Subm?t Request I Back to Menu Withou: Saviag Is this S?riority Code change approved? '7 Sport Administrator Comments: Save Without Completing Requegt 7 Cowlete Request Back to Menu Without Saving 4 thr?n?s?SnI-nx?rr?i arcaihio?n: 1/ EXHIBIT From: Chen, Grant Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:20 PM To: Subject: RE: Track Gift Agreements Thanks- I?ll keep you posted From: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:08 PM To: Chen, Grant Cc: Subject: Track Gift Agreements Grant, i?ve attached a couple of sample gift agreements for either or to track over the next four years. A gift directly to Track would be $100% tax deductible and we should be sure Coach Maynard is looped in before we ?ask" for anything. As attached, these gift agreements are pretty basic but we can expand upon them at the needs of either Coach Maynard or the donors. As we discussed, a host of enhanced benefits are available to donors contributing at least per year to a singie area of Athletics, so we should discuss the various additional benefits (Pavilion Club, travel opportunities, special events) with the-to make sure their expectations are clear and that Athletics is best able to provide benefits for their generosity. We can cross the bridge of Pauley seats a little further down the line, but, to purchase high quality season tickets, the - should expect to make an additional 80% tax deductible donation to the Wooden Athletic Fund of about $5,000- $10,000 per year (depending on 2 or 4 seats) and purchase tickets on a season basis for about $1,200 each. There wouldn?t be a need to set up any type of long term pledge for the Wooden Fund as all seating gifts are renewed on an annual basis. would greatly appreciate the opportunity to join you and th- for a meeting to discuss their interests and motivations for giving, ensure that UCLA meets all of their wishes, and ultimately finalize the terms of a pledge agreement. Please let me know if I can assist Thanks! EXHIBIT From: Sent: To: Subject: I'll come by tomorrow ~Grant Chen UCLA ?06 UCLA Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach Twitter: @UCLATennls Office: (310) Sent from my iPhone Chen, Grant Thursday, April 04, 2013 5:40 PM Re: Track Gift Agreements That is fantastic! We are going to have to get you a Development title to add to your tennis credentials. Are you and- good to go with the letter I sent a couple weeks ago? can amend if necessary. Also, let me know when and if it would be appropriate for me to reach out and say thanks and discuss seating details/options. Thanks man! From: Chen, Grant Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 5:34 PM To: Subject: RE: Track Gift Agreements We got a deal at four years for track I?m getting paperwork may be able to get another SSK for wooden fund for the tickets From: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:08 PM To: Chen, Grant Cc: Subject: Track Gift Agreements Grant, I?ve attached a couple of sample gift agreements for either or to track over the next four years. A gift directly to Track would be $100% tax deductible and we should be sure Coach Maynard is looped in before we "ask? for anything. As attached, these gift agreements are pretty basic but we can expand upon them at the needs of either Coach Maynard or the donors. As we discussed, a host of enhanced benefits are available to donors contributing at least per year to a single area of Athletics, so we should discuss the various additional benefits (Pavilion Club, travei opportunities, special events) with- to make sure their expectations are clear and that Athletics is best able to provide benefits for their generosity. We can cross the bridge of Pauley seats a little further down the line, but, to purchase high quality season tickets,- should expect to make an additional 80% tax deductible donation to the Wooden Athletic Fund of about $5,000?510,000 per year (depending on 2 or 4 seats) and purchase tickets on a season basis for about $1,200 each. There wouldn?t be a need to set up any type of long term pledge for the Wooden Fund as all seating gifts are renewed on an annual basis. i would greatly appreciate the opportunity to join you and- for a meeting to discuss their interests and motivations for giving, ensure that UCLA meets all of their wishes, and ultimately finalize the terms of a pledge agreement. Please let me know if I can assist Thanks! EXHIBIT From: Chen, Grant Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:31 AM To: Subject: Re: FW: She's a good kid for sharing Her parents are terrific also. They care and are supportive again ?Grant Chen UCLA Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach UCLA '06 Cell Office: (310) 206?6375 Twitter: Sent from my iPhone I already like her more than my current managers. From: Sent: To: Subject: Please let me know if there?s anything I can do to help you with - Hopefully she will be an assistance to you and your staff. Monday, September 23, 2013 6:58 PM Maynard, Michael - freshman EXHIBIT Her family and are appreciative of the opportunity you have given her and will do anything/everything to return the favor. Grant Chen UCLA Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach UCLA ?06 Office: {310) 206?6375 Cell: Fax: (310) 825-8573 FB: UCLAMensTennis Twitter: @UCLATennis lnstagram: EXHIBIT 6 From: Maynard, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:21 AM To: Chen, Grant Subject: Re: - Grant She has really been excellent, 3 very big help. i would love to have her with us next year. What has her experience been? MM - mobile On Mar 5, 2014, at 8:14 AM, "Chen, Grant" wrote: What are your thoughts with - for next season? Are you happy with her being a part of the program? i am just following up and making sure you are pleased with her and she?s some assistance to you, your staff and the program. ?Grant Chen UCLA Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach UCLA ?06 Of?ce: (310) 206-6375 Cell: Fax: (310) 825-8573 FB: UCLAMensTennis Twitter: @UCLATennis instagram: EXHIBIT From: Maynard, Michael Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 5:53 PM To: Subject: UCLA near- I just recently received your email from Grant Chen. I wanted to thank you each personally for the generous ?nancial gift you have made to our combined gender programs! I'm only sorry for not having done so earlier. Your gift is very much needed and equally appreciated. This year we have used your gift to directly offset the shortfall of the current budget for our additional team competition uniforms. We have increased the number of uniforms available to our student athletes for the current year. In the future we are seeking to add additional competition uniforms, so that during our multi~day competitions (after: 3-4 days) our student athletes can wear afresh and clean sets each day. Most of all I would like to thank you for- presence on the team! She is truly an exceptional young lady. She is very pleasant, hardworking, conscientious and disciplined. I hope that her experience has been a positive one thus far. I?d love to know her perception of the experience. and Grant had indicated that you have graciously offered to host a fundraiser event at . I truly appreciate your offer, and if it still stands I would like to take you up on the offer. Our Foundation development outreach is called The Coaches Club. We would like to host an event for our top level and major donors, if appropriate to your offer. Possibly we could talk sometime, and maybe have the opportunity to meet, to discuss what you would feel comfortable with. I'd love the opportunity to meet you both in person and thank you once again. Please feel free to contact me if you have a few moments cell). or email if you prefer. Go Bruins! Mike Maynard Director of Track Field and Cross Country UCLA Department of Intercollegiate Athletics JD Morgan Center #236k 3225 Westwood Plaza Los CA 90095 - more "Don't find fault, find a remedy.? Henry Ford h?no: EXHIBIT I ?ent: urs a scam er Forwarded message From: Rick Singer Date: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Water 010 coach To: Tell him you will be listed either way- if a player for admissions sake, I obviously will not play but come to practice but take on a role as mono or or you can say manager from the start but it is probably easier to do player. I have a friend 0? that can create a pro?le if needed for polo. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 4, 2013, at 9:46 Wits Hi Mr, Singer, Thanks so much for setting everything up for me at This afternoon Grant introduced me to Brandon Brooks, the head coach of UCLA women's water polo. He was really nice, but told me he wasn?t quite sure What to do with me regarding having me listed on the team as a player, or as a manager. I thought about it, and lxthink I?m really well suited to be a manager, because I have a lot of good organizational skills from all the community service and, team building stuff that I've done. i wrote him this email, but wanted to check with you ?rst to see what you think. Please let me know what you think, and thanks again for everything! Sincerely, Hi Brandon, Thank ou so much for takin the time to meet with me today.- H, I?ve always loved the excitement and athleticism of water polo matches. Knowing about your and the team?s amazing record at UCLA, I am even more motivated and honored to be affiliated with UCLA women?s water polo! I?ve been thinking carefully about the options you discussed with me, and I think that I could best serve as a manager to support the team. I am very organized and have extensive team building and coordination experience. I believe I have the right background to serve as a manager for you and the team, and will strive to learn how best to support everyone on the team. I am attaching some additional information in case you need to know more about me. But please feel free to call or email me at: any time. Thank you again for the chance to work with you. Go Bruins! Sincerely, EXHIBIT From: Chen, Grant Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11506 AM To: Brooks, Brandon Subject: RE: Thank you for meeting with me! Thanks man Appreciate it Hi handle the other thing. How does Nov 2014, Nov 2015, Nov 2016, Nov 2017 sound for each one? . EXHIBIT From: Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:55 AM To: Chen, Grant Subject: RE: WWP Attachments: Women?s Water Polo Gift Agreement $80K.docx Grant, That?s awesome. We attached a letter. Please let me know ifl can help any Thanks, From: Chen, Grant Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:41 AM To: Subject: WWP Can you write me up a commitment letter per year, for 4 years Paid Nov 2014, Nov 2015, Nov 2016, Nov 2017 To the Women?s Water Polo program. And just attach and send to me? i don?t know if it?s going to happen but would like to have paperwork ready in case. I?ve spoken with Brandon Brooks so he knows. l?m working on it. Name: just put a line and I?ll have them print and Sign their name ~Grant Chen UCLA Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach UCLA '06 Office: (310) 206?6375 Cell: Fax: (310) 825?8573 FB: UCLAMensTennis Twitter: @UCLATennis instagram: 5/132014 ACS Athletics View Form EXHIBIT Add key notes about the prospect for your Prospect's Nam: - Sport: Water Polo, Women?s SAT Critical Reading: - ACT: - SAT Math: - SAT: - SAT Written: - Core GPA: - ACT Composite: - GPA: - ACT English: - Admissions Status: - ACT Math: - Transcript Status: - ACT Reading: - ACT Science: - ACT Written: - Mommas Current priority Code: NIA Change Priority Code To: verbal con-oral; impact player, walk-on who will add depth, etc.) UCLA Priority Coding Process Sport Supervisor to oomider reviewing this coding request. blue chip prospect, mp goal keeper, Comments: Will help to build local base. Intelligent person who I believe will help the program excel. Walk on who will add depth Save Without Submitting Request 7 Submit Request 1 I Back to Menu wrnout Saving Is this Priority Code change approved? Yes 1 Sport Administrator Comments: Save Without Completing Request 1 I Complete Request Back to Menu thout Saving 7 1M EXHIBIT f_ ?mew 3:5 9:01pm BSCK 32333 9334:3333. 9 Just Wanted to Let you "knew eve hing 3S S33 SS3: . She W333 be {presented St the January meetmg, and there is no queshon she 3 M33 be approved ithoutf second though3 HAPPY YOU Ste awescme thankS EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 0 From: Chen, Grant Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:43 AM To: Maynard, Michael I have a copy of the financial pledge contribution from the .family I will slip it under your door ?Grant Chen UCLA ?06 UCLA Men?s Tennis Assistant Coach Twitter: @UCLATennis Cell: Office: (310) 206-6375 Fax: (310) 825-8573 Sent from AD Outiook Account