Rep. Jim Santini (D-Nev.), who instigated the congressional probe of NCAA investigative and enforcement practices, said yesterday he had mixed reactions to the NCCA's positions on some reforms proposed by congressional witnesses.

"There are elements of good-faith efforts (to reform some practices), but in the final analysis there is still an intransigence to accept the fact that there is a need for positive changes in the way they operate," Santini said.

On the positive side, Santini said, some of the proposal's to be presented to be NCCA convention in January indicated that "some strides have been made." Specifically, he noted proposals for establishing standards of proof and evidence in disciplinary proceedings and a statute of limitations on reviewing alleged rule violations.

Santini, one of the NCCA's most vociferous critics during the congressional hearings, said, however, that he was disappointed in its "stonewall resistance" to other recommended changes.

He said he objected to the NCCA's characterization as "undersirable" or "clearly impractical" proposals that the NCCA conduct a "joint and simultaneous investigation" with the accused school of the charges and that the NCCA - instead of the college - be required to declare ineligibility.

"I wish they would recognize the fact that this so-called incestuous relationship between the (investigative) staff be eliminated," he said of the arrangement frequently critized in the hearings before the House Sub-committee on Oversight and Investigations.

Noting that there will be other attempts by individuals and colleges to change NCAA policies during the convention, Santini said that if the convention "steamrolls over those efforts to make additional changes, they (NCCA) can rest assured there will be continuing (congressional) oversight."