The Arizona Board of Regents is once again meeting for "legal advice and discussion regarding Arizona men's basketball," according to an updated executive session agenda posted Thursday morning.
The basketball item was discussed Friday. Thursday's agenda included five items, with the basketball-related item listed fourth. It was not addressed during the first day of meetings, ABOR chair Ron Shoopman told the Star.
Executive sessions are held privately and do not involve action. Any action items would have to be added to the public agenda with a minimum of 24 hours' notice.
The regents have regularly held executive session discussions on the UA men's basketball program since a federal investigation into college basketball was made public in September 2017. The regents last held a discussion in February, after which they announced that they supported UA's move to terminate assistant basketball coach Mark Phelps.
Phelps, who has the right to appeal any discipline, is still listed as a staffer in the UA online phonebook. His contract will expire in June, if he's not officially fired before then.
A second college basketball-related federal bribery trial is scheduled to begin April 22 in New York. UA coach Sean Miller and LSU coach Will Wade have both reportedly been subpoenaed to testify. Defendant Christian Dawkins is expected to try to prove he was not bribing coaches as much as brokering deals with them in order to land recruits.
The prosecution has filed a motion that argues testimony from coaches should not be allowed. Defense attorneys say coaches' testimony will establish the defendants' state of mind.
The prosecution's motion quoted a Yahoo report in which Dawkins’ attorney, Steve Haney, said he planned to “pull back the curtain” on college basketball.
“These statements, along with the defense counsel’s proffer that they intend to elicit testimony from the subpoenaed coaches about their involvement in NCAA rule-breaking by paying student-athletes suggests that the defense may resort in this trial to arguments that pose a risk of attempting to garner the sympathy of the jury, and, therefore, would be categorically inappropriate,” the prosecutors' motion said.