CHAPEL HILL — The University of North Carolina’s investigation into its football program spanned one of the most tumultuous eight weeks in the tenure of head coach Bill Belichick — a period that included the resignations of two of his top lieutenants: general manager Michael Lombardi and defensive coordinator Steve Belichick, his son.
Their resignations came as investigators conducted more than 60 interviews into the culture of the program, including questions about allegations of drug use and sex in the program. WRAL previously reported details of the interviews as the investigation was ongoing.
Other WRAL Top Stories
On Thursday, the day the probe concluded, WRAL was the only broadcast outlet invited by UNC lawyers to a limited briefing on the investigation, its origins and its conclusions, which UNC said included findings of “certain actions demonstrated a disregard for Carolina’s values and standards of conduct.”
Here are highlights — in FAQ form — of the briefing with extended comments from UNC general counsel Paul Newton and Nate Huff, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg who was hired by the university to conduct the investigation.
What triggered the investigation, and how was it conducted?
Newton said UNC launched the investigation based on the concerns raised by what he described as “a limited number of former employees.”
“We took those concerns seriously and we made an immediate decision to retain proven independent counsel,” he said, adding that he gave Huff — a former federal prosecutor with decades of litigation experience — also helped lead UNC’s recent investigation into its School of Civic Life and Leadership, wide access and a mandate to dig deep into the program.
“We instructed Nate to follow the evidence without restriction on our part and with the expectation that his work would allow us to identify conduct that did not meet our values, and those values are integrity, compliance, excellence, accountability and a commitment to the well-being of our student athletes and our employees,” Newton said.
“Nate and his team have done just that,” he added. “And we have and we will continue to effect necessary corrective actions so that our football program is one we can all be proud of. While the investigation has concluded, our commitment to receiving and addressing concerns is not over.”
Huff said his team — which has extensive experience conducting internal investigations in higher education and financial regulation — said independence was key to conducting a full investigation, one that would provide lessons for the future of the program.
“Our job was to do what we always do, which is to do an impartial and independent investigation,” Huff said. “That’s why people hire us, and so that’s what we did here. Our scope was broad, so we looked into a lot of stuff. This was not a circumstance where we were targeting any individual person or any specific people. We were looking program-wide, football program-wide.
“These types of cases often happen in response to an allegation or an incident,” he continued. “A university will have something like that and commonly universities use that as an occasion to not only look at what happened, but also to pause and assess ‘How is the culture?’ ‘Are we compliant?’ There’s different names for investigations like that, but we were doing that here.
“There were allegations from former employees,” he added, “but there was also the instruction to make this more than that.”
How did the investigation go beyond the former employees’ allegations?
Huff said he saw the investigation as an opportunity to assess — and provide recommendations — for improving the culture. Such efforts by outside attorneys are common in the business world, when companies face compliance challenges.
“Part of my work was looking backwards, helping the university understand what happened,” Huff said during the briefing. “But part of it was looking forward. What does the university have to do going forward to be even better, even more compliant, [to] have a culture that’s even healthier. So we were doing all that.
I wasn’t hired to target any of these famous people in particular. We were doing one of these broader, backward-looking and forward-looking investigations.
“We do collaborate with and communicate with the university and the university counsel’s office,” he continued. “That’s a normal part of what we do with our clients. We keep them informed of our activities. We collaborate with them. If there’s a suggestion that that sort of impedes my ability as an investigator, that suggestion is not accurate. My relationship with the university in this case and the university counsel’s office, that relationship empowered my work.”
What kind of access did investigators have, and what was the scope of their work?
Huff said he and his team made full use of their access to university personnel and other people connected to the program and the university to provide UNC with a full picture of the state of the program. He said his team conducted more than 60 interviews over the course of the investigation, which was launched in late July. “I had access to whoever I needed to talk to, from top to bottom, university-wide,” Huff said. Bill Belichick was among those who were interviewed, he said.
“I had access to the highest levels of the football program and the athletic department, all the way down to the lowest levels,” Huff said. “I had access to the football facilities. I had use of [the general counsel’s] office. I had access to coach Bill Belichick. Coach Belichick made sure that his staff was available to me. At no point did I feel like the university’s counsel’s office or university leadership or athletics leadership was limiting or steering me.
“My team and I were able to immerse ourselves in Carolina football and its compliance and its culture and in these allegations,” Huff added. “When you do that, you’re going to hear a mix of information. I talked to a lot of people who had a great experience. I talked to a lot of committed professionals who have had a wonderful experience here and who love this institution and are doing the right thing and are very happy. And I talked to individuals who are the opposite of that. I talked to individuals who had allegations of misconduct and complaints about the environment. I had the full spectrum.”
What did investigators do when interviewees made allegations of misconduct?
Huff said his team investigated allegations of misconduct and sought to assess their veracity. From there, he passed along findings to the university and provided advice on what to do next. “We use our professional judgement to discern which allegations warrant further investigation, which allegations can be corroborated by other evidence and which allegations are not corroborating evidence,” Huff said. “And sometimes you’re just left with an uncorroborated allegation. We start out taking them all seriously.”
“We followed where the evidence led and, in a few instances, the evidence led us to conclude that there was conduct that sort of fell short of the university’s values,” he continued. “When that happens, what is my job? I don’t adjudicate someone guilty or innocent. My job is to give the university legal advice about what is the evidence of that particular conduct, how strong is the evidence, what does it show? The goal from our team’s perspective is to describe that evidence with as much precision as I can, so that they can kind of make decisions with a clear eye as to how strong it is or not strong it is.
“Having found this conduct that we felt fell short, I’ve given legal advice to my client about what I think about that evidence and I’ve tried to be very precise in describing what it is and how strong it is and, in some cases, how weak it is. And then they’ve been able to use that to sort of make decisions about corrective actions that they think need to happen going forward.”
Why not release a report?
Newton said the university won’t release a report on investigators’ findings. The investigation was focused on personnel matters, which are protected from public records laws or attorney-client privilege. The university has refrained from releasing findings of some internal reports in the past. Last month, an Orange County judge ruled that UNC doesn’t have to release any part of a separate report into the School of Civic Life and Leadership. UNC was sued by a consortium of media outlets, including WRAL, that sought the report’s release. That investigation was also led by Huff. Huff and Newton addressed the reasons for trying to keep secret the findings of those kinds of investigations.
“Every time you do one of these [investigations] and it’s true with these two, people are trusting you,” said Huff, referring to the SCiLL and football inquiries. “It’s a hard thing to have the courage to talk to a lawyer you’ve never met before, and so the university has to be discerning about what it releases, how and when.”
Newton said confidentiality is critical to enabling people to give candid answers when they’re interviewed by investigators, and fostering that kind of environment helps UNC get to the bottom of allegations. “My job is to take the long view of the culture of this university and make sure that I advance a culture that allows people to feel safe about raising concerns,” Newton said. “And while it would be expedient for us to just give you the SCiLL report — you decided to sue us over that — it’s a lot easier. My life’s a lot easier to make it all public. But it’s not about my life. It’s not about our individual satisfaction of getting to know something that may be salacious or that you’re curious about when people have put themselves out there on the line to be honest about something that’s very uncomfortable for them to do it. If I expose every faculty member in SCiLL who chose to have the courage to come forward and express their concerns, what happens the next time we have the need to investigate another concern on this campus that involves the same universe of people? It will be, ‘I remember what you did to my colleagues. I’m not going to talk to you about that.’ So I have to take the long view about our culture and the culture of this entire university has got to be one that anyone at any station, at any department, at any unit on campus can raise their hand and say, ‘I’ve got a concern about something. Is it safe for me to raise this with you?’ The answer is ‘yes.’ It’s got to be ‘yes.’”
Newton was asked if he’s concerned about the possible perception that the university isn’t taking allegations seriously because the results of the investigation won’t be made public.
“We’re cognizant of that,” Newton said, "but you run the risk of losing trust of those you need to come forward when you gain the trust of those who have prurient interest in the issues. So it’s a balancing act. It’s not easy. We are going to ask the general public to trust us. We have no reason not to effect corrective actions that work. We have no reason to want to see any concern that’s been substantiated go unaddressed. It’s not in our best interest to sweep anything under the rug, other than to continue to have a culture where people are safe to raise concerns.”
The university, in a statement, said “the investigation determined that certain actions demonstrated a disregard for Carolina’s values and standards of conduct. The investigation also found that these actions were isolated in scope and not a systemic failure.”
Will there be a written report generated from this investigation? If not, why not?
Huff said no written report was generated from the investigation. He said he determines whether or not to generate a written report based, in part, on the complexity of the investigation. He said the status of the people involved doesn’t play a role in whether or not to produce a written report. “The only thing I’m thinking about when I’m making that decision is how to be really precise, how to make this digestible so that the client can use it to make the right choice,” Huff said. Any decision about whether to release documents publicly is made by the university, not the investigators, he said.
Have you made decisions throughout the process or just at the end? And when do investigators have enough evidence to be confident that something is substantiated and therefore should be subject to corrective action?
Huff said the decisions are up to the university; it was investigators’ job to bring findings to UNC leaders as issues arose to help them decide how or if to act. “One of the issues I have to advise my client is when do I think a particular allegation has been substantiated or not?” Huff said. “How strong is the evidence or how weak is the evidence? At a certain point in these investigations, where you’ve been able to corroborate certain things, it puts the client in a position where they’re able to make a smart choice.”
Huff added: “At a certain point, you become empowered to act by the strength of the evidence. And when you get to that point, you can pause. We’re at that point now with this wave of issues that we’ve been dealing with. There’s a leadership decision that has to be made about when senior leadership feels confident that they have enough information to act in a smart way.”
Newton said there’s a risk to declaring that an investigation has been fully concluded, a point UNC made in its statement announcing the results of the investigation. The university said it would look into any new allegations if they arose.
“There’s going to be those that’ll say, ‘Oh, you didn’t do enough. You didn’t do enough. You should have looked at something else, this, that or the other,’” Newton said. “And the safe harbor there is that we’re always open to anyone who wants to express new allegations, concerns, whatever. If they’re credible, we’ll take proper corrective actions in the future. So the door is essentially never closed. This investigation is closed, but our door is never closed to expressions of concern about this program.”
Did investigators find evidence of drug use by Steve Belichick, in particular, or among coaches in the program?
Investigators asked interviewees about whether Steve Belichick had used drugs on the job or if he had given drugs to at least one player, people familiar with the investigation previously told WRAL. When asked about that line of questioning, Huff didn’t say whether such questions were related to the former defensive coordinator. Steve Belichick hasn’t responded to multiple requests for comment. His wife issued a statement about his resignation to ESPN.
“I’ll tell you what I can about that,” Huff said. “Drug use was an issue that we investigated — and I’m not able to tell you about specific individuals and evidence as to specific individuals without ticking over a line into opening a door on my attorney-client privilege. ... Among the category of issues that we looked at, included allegations related to drugs. And I investigated those allegations consistent with the way I described earlier in [this briefing]. University leadership can consider and make decisions about what, if any, corrective actions need to be made.”
Without regard to any individuals, did investigators find strong drug violations were happening in the program?
Huff said he wouldn’t characterize his evidence for reporters. Newton reiterated UNC’s statement indicating that the investigation found issues that were considered isolated and not reflective of a program-wide problem. “It is fair to say, consistent with our message, there’s not a systemic issue there,” Newton said. “The message reads that essentially there were isolated instances of things that required corrective actions, but it was not found to be systemic to the program. That includes this issue.”
Did investigators look into allegations of possible sexual relationships involving football staff?
WRAL previously reported, citing interviews with people involved in the investigation, that investigators had inquired about allegations of sexual relationships between at least one member of the recruiting staff and at least one player, and allegations of similar possible relationships involving at least one member of the recruiting staff and at least one assistant coach.
“As we were assessing the culture and compliance within the program,” Huff said, “We were in receipt of allegations that related to inappropriate relationships. We followed that evidence, as was our charge, and so what that means is that there were witnesses that were asked uncomfortable questions about that, as you can imagine. The potential of a romantic relationship between a staff member and a student at the university or a staff member and a player, those are allegations that we have to take seriously. We use the same investigative process for those as we used for other allegations. I can confirm for you that that was among the allegations that we were looking at. I can’t tell you about particular individuals or relationships.
Did investigators find evidence of sexual relationships within the program – without naming specific individuals?
Huff declined to provide specific findings. “I think that the university’s corrective actions are likely to include or address issues related to relationships,” he said. “I can tell you about the beginning, which is: there were allegations. And I can tell you about the end that I anticipate that there would be some form of corrective action. But the middle part about what I found and who and all of that, I’m not able to and I’m not even able to tell you whether I found.”
Was the nature of the allegation of sexual relationships specific to a player and a staffer?
Huff said he was looking at all manner of relationships that might be inappropriate, and that sexual relationships are an example of an inappropriate relationship he would have investigated. “Another example or another question that’s raised is the work environment within the football program,” Huff said. “Is it a safe and respectful environment? Do the young people who work there have good supervision and mentorship and all of that? The questions you’re asking get to that, too, which might be more important than who’s sleeping with who.”
Did investigators find any NCAA violations as a result of the investigation?
Newton said UNC’s compliance office was in the loop throughout the investigation, and it was that office’s role to act on any information it deemed worthy of closer examination. “Our work was made available to the compliance team, and I’m not aware that they found anything,” he said. “But everything we did was available to them to review for NCAA compliance and it was outside of our scope. We did not ask Nate to determine.”
Huff added: “During the course of my investigation, when I encountered information that I thought went into the world of NCAA violations, that particular information I might have run by the compliance office. I didn’t give compliance all of my work about all of these issues because that’s not their world.”
Outside of questions about allegations of drug use and improper relationships, what other allegations were investigators able to investigate?
Huff reaffirmed that questions were asked about allegations of drug use and allegations of improper relationships. “Certainly those were two,” he said. “We were also investigating some allegations that touched on NCAA issues. That’s where we would flag those for the internal folks who deal with those issues and then there were allegations along the way that we felt like were not substantiated and other things that just felt like lower-level complaints that don’t really rise to the level of misconduct or policy violations.”
Is Bill Belichick running a program that complies with university and NCAA rules?
Huff said he couldn’t describe particular findings or evidence related to a particular person, but he said Bill Belichick and the university provided full access and were cooperative with the investigation.
“Coach Belichick made himself and his staff and his building available to me,” Huff said. I was able to complete my work thoroughly and independently. I had full run of that facility and the people I needed to do my work. I was able to do that thoroughly, and I’ve made my recommendations and findings available to my client. I can’t person by person tell you what I found.”
Huff added: “He made his whole staff and himself available to me during football season. These coaches that I talked to, people that I talked to in that building, the only thing they were asking me is: When do you need me? Where do you need me to be? I was able to investigate football in the middle of football season fully and I had access to people, even people like coach Bill Belichick.”
UNC’s statement said the investigation found actions that “demonstrated a disregard for Carolina’s values and standards of conduct” were “isolated in scope and not a systemic failure.” What would it have taken to find systemic failure in the football program?
Newton indicated that systemic issues are usually resolved with more extensive actions, and that the problems identified by investigators were isolated and easily corrected. “In my mind, it’s if we didn’t have effective corrective actions,” Newton said. “If we could not identify and be confident in executing or having already executed corrective actions that go to the root cause of the problem. I think we can do that here and are in that process right now.”
Lombardi and Steve Belichick were the only two people to resign. While UNC hasn’t given an explicit reason for their resignations, the departures were noted in UNC’s statement about the investigation.
How do university officials respond to an article in The Atlantic that suggested there’s a civil war happening at UNC and that some people want Bill Belichick to be fired?
Newton said he hadn’t read an article in The Atlantic indicating that people within UNC want Belichick to be fired. “I don’t care what it says,” Newton said. “None of that is going to impact my desire to place this university in the best possible position, depending on where the facts lead. None that means anything to those of us working on what’s fact and what’s fiction and what actually happened. People can play politics and articulate their preferences. That doesn’t even resonate with me. It does not penetrate to us in doing our jobs on behalf of this university. I don’t care who the head coach is. We’re going to call balls and strikes as the facts present.”
Who did investigators take their findings to?
Newton said: “The appropriate leadership weighs in on recommendations we make. Our job is to make recommendations and give counsel and advice, and we’ve done that. All the right people made these decisions as they exist today.”
Athletic director Steve Newmark and Bill Belichick were given enough information to make the determination on any corrective action or any other decisions related to the program, a person familiar with the investigation told WRAL.
Did investigators bring the findings to Bill Belichick? Is he aware of all the issues that were uncovered in the football program?
Huff said investigators don’t typically share specific findings with witnesses in an investigation. “We might have to ask witnesses certain questions from which they can try to make assumptions about what we know or don’t know,” Huff said. “But I’m not in the business of telling witnesses, even witnesses that are very high ranking, what I’m doing, what I’m asking. I don’t give kid gloves questions to any witness.
Huff added: “To your question about the warring factions in the SCiLL investigation and in this investigation, for me, I’m sitting across from a witness and the only thing I care about is how to get the truth out of this witness. What evidence are they giving me? Can it be corroborated?”
WRAL State Government Editor Jack Hagel contributed to this report.