The NCAA News - News & Features

CEOs endorse governance, committee proposals in II

The presidents, meeting June 25-26 in San Francisco in conjunction with the NCAA Presidents Commission meeting, approved recommendations regarding the Division II governance and committee structure that were forwarded to the subcommittee by the NCAA Division II Presidents Council Transition Team.

The Presidents Council Transition Team earlier endorsed the proposals, which were formulated by the NCAA Division II Governance Project Team and recommended by the NCAA Division II Management Council Transition Team.

With the Division II presidents' approval, the project team and Management Council Transition Team will begin to draft proposed legislation for sponsorship by the Presidents Commission at the 1997 Convention. These same recommendations and legislative proposals also will be presented to the NCAA Division II Steering Committee and Council in August, at which time those groups will consider sponsorship.

Among features of the proposed governance structure is a Division II Administrative Committee, which could act on behalf of the Presidents Council and Management Council between meetings of those groups, and a Division II Budget/Finance Committee, which would be charged with reviewing all preliminary matters related to the division's budget and financial affairs.

The Administrative Committee would include as members the chairs and vice-chairs of the Presidents Council and Management Council and one other chief executive officer from the Presidents Council. The Presidents Council's representatives on the committee would act alone on matters pertaining only to Presidents Council issues.

The Budget/Finance Committee would include four Presidents Council and three Management Council members, including the vice-chairs of both groups. The committee would advise both groups on budget and finance issues.

Organization of Councils

The presidents also approved recommendations for organization of the Presidents and Management Councils. Many current features of the NCAA governance structure, including criteria governing eligibility for re-election, election of officers, and conduct of meetings, would be retained in the new structure.

Under the plan endorsed by the presidents, members of the Presidents and Management Councils who are unable to attend a meeting will not be permitted to send an alternate or substitute. Also, presidents and Management Council representatives whose membership qualifications change during a term will not be permitted to continue to serve on the Presidents Council or Management Council until the next NCAA Convention, as is currently permitted for Presidents Commission and Council members.

The plan also calls for amending restructuring legislation to extend Presidents and Management Council officers' terms to a maximum of two years. Also, the terms of the chair and vice-chair of a Council would be staggered so that they do not expire at the same time, and the vice-chair would not automatically succeed the chair.

The Presidents Council chair and vice-chair would represent the Division II Presidents Council on the Association-wide Executive Committee.

Other governance issues

The presidents also discussed student-athletes' and coaches' involvement in the governance structure.

Under a plan approved by the Presidents Commission (see story on page 1), Division II would not appoint student-athletes to the Management Council but would convene an annual "student-athlete summit," where the Management Council will meet with a Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to discuss legislative proposals and student-athlete issues.

Division II presidents also determined that coaches' access to the division's governance process should occur through Division II sports committees and national coaches associations.

In other governance matters, the presidents:

* Agreed to offer proposed legislation at the 1997 Convention to change the effective date for Division II legislative-sponsorship requirements from August 1, 1997, to immediately upon adjournment of the 1997 Convention, so that the new requirements will be applicable to legislation proposed for the 1998 Convention.

* Agreed to maintain the current interpretation process in Division II, but noted that the issue will be reviewed after implementation of restructuring to determine if any modifications are necessary as a result of greater federation.

Committee structure

The Division II subcommittee also approved recommendations involving a Division II committee structure.

Those recommendations included a proposal to create eight Division II-specific committees. The presidents approved the recommendation in concept, but reserved the right to revise the proposed composition and charges of those committees before the September 1 Presidents Commision legislative deadline.

The proposed Division II committees are:

* Academic Requirements Committee. The proposed committee would handle division-specific duties currently performed by the Academic Requirements and Two-Year College Relations Committees, Council Subcommittee on Initial-Eligibility Waivers, and Special Committee on Graduation-Rates Disclosure Requirements.

* Championships Committee. The proposed committee would handle duties currently assigned to the Division II Championships Committee and division-specific responsibilities of the Special Events Committee. This committee would oversee any division-specific sports committees included in the new structure.

* Committee on Infractions. The proposed Division II committee would assume tasks performed by the current Committee on Infractions.

* Eligibility Committee. The proposed committee would assume tasks performed by the current Eligibility Committee.

* Legislation Committee. The proposed committee would assume tasks performed by the Interpretations and Legislative Review Committees. It also would handle the review of proposed and existing legislation currently performed by other committees in the areas of financial aid and amateurism, professional sports, recruiting, personnel limitations, and playing and practice seasons.

* Membership Committee. This proposed new committee would handle issues relating to division membership requirements and compliance. It also would assume Convention duties currently performed by the current Executive Committee or the Credentials and Voting Committees.

* Nominating Committee. The proposed committee would assume tasks performed by the current Nominating Committee and Men's and Women's Committees on Committees.

* Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. The committee would include Division II student-athletes and two Management Council members, and would focus on issues specific to Division II student-athletes.

All of these division-specific committees would report directly to the Division II Management Council.

Even though the size of the committees remains subject to change, it is anticipated that Division II members' opportunities for committee service will increase significantly under the new structure.

Currently, 44 representatives of Division II institutions serve on committees (excluding the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee) that would be federated under the proposal. If Division II-specific committees are created as currently proposed, the number of committee positions for Division II representatives would increase to 60.

The presidents also addressed committee functions currently performed by the Administrative Review Panel, Committee on Review and Planning, and Infractions Appeals and Communications Committees. Those functions would be handled in the new governance structure either by the Presidents Council or Management Council or by project teams established by those groups.

Survey responses influence decisions

Results of the survey, conducted during the spring, will be mailed to the membership during the week of July 8, but opinions of the 200 responding institutions (82 percent of active Division II members) already have influenced decisions involving a proposed athletics certification program and designation of Association-wide committees.

For example, after two-thirds of survey respondents said they opposed reconsideration of a Division II athletics certification program at the 1997 Convention, the Division II subcommittee of the NCAA Presidents Commission decided not to pursue adoption of such a program.

Three-quarters of survey repondents indicated support for improving membership compliance through enhancement of the Division II Institutional Self-Study Guide (ISSG) and the process by which it is completed. The presidents opted to pursue that path.

Respondents also demonstrated support (86 percent agreed or strongly agreed) for requiring institutions to develop written plans for addressing compliance problems identified through use of the ISSG. As a result, the Division II subcommittee asked the NCAA Council to consider such a requirement.

Survey results also played a role in discussions by the NCAA Transition Oversight Committee that resulted in recommendations about which general committees should continue to exist as Association-wide panels.

Division II members of the committee cited survey results during those discussions, and a couple of the committees for which Division II members supported Association-wide status ultimately were recommended by the Transition Oversight Committee as multidivision committees.

Student-athlete involvement

One area in which Division II transition teams did not act directly in accordance with survey results involves student-athlete involvement in Division II governance.

More than three-fourths of respondents (77 percent) said a student-athlete representative of the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee should be included as a member of the Division II Management Council, and nearly two-thirds of those affirmative respondents (65 percent) said the student-athlete should be a voting member.

The Division II transition teams chose a different approach, however, and won Division II presidents' endorsement of that approach.

The transition teams proposed an annual "student-athlete summit" involving members of the Management Council and Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. It is believed that holding such a summit during the summer will be less disruptive to student-athletes' schedules.

The survey did not ask Division II members about such an approach. But Division II leaders believe the approach will help promote the development of student-athlete advisory committees at the institutional and conference levels and be more beneficial in the long run by improving the student-athlete voice at all levels of intercollegiate athletics.

In addition, Division II leaders will encourage the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to be as active as its predecessor at the NCAA Convention, since Division II legislative decisions still will be made in the annual business sessions.

Division II survey respondents also indicated support for including student-athletes as members of division-specific committees (70 percent); 58 percent of those affirmative respondents supported permitting student-athletes to serve as voting members of those committees. The transition teams will continue to review the issue of student-athlete involvement in Division II committees.

Other topics

The survey also solicited Division II members' views about membership requirements, the championships structure, use of Division II funds, financial aid and academic requirements.

Responses to those questions will be considered by Division II project teams that have been formed to address those specific issues. In some cases, the responses will provide those teams with a starting point for their work.

Among survey highlights relating to those topics:

Membership requirements: The survey did not reveal either majority support or opposition for proposals to increase minimum sports-sponsorship requirements or to increase minimum requirements for sponsorship of team sports. More respondents oppose (45 percent to 40 percent) increasing the sports-sponsorship requirement; more respondents support (44 percent to 36 percent) increasing minimum sponsorship of team sports from two men's and two women's to three men's and three women's sports. Most other respondents indicated neutrality on those questions.

Respondents were nearly evenly split on whether to increase the Division II provisional membership period from three to four years (37 percent support to 36 percent opposition, with 26 percent neutral).

Championships structure: Forty-six percent of institutions sponsoring football supported establishing subdivisions in that sport, while 37 percent opposed subdivision and 12 percent were neutral. A majority of all Division II respondents (59 percent) opposed subdivision for all team sports. Nearly four-fifths of respondents (79 percent) supported retaining the current system of regionally based qualification for championships.

When asked to use a scale of 1 to 5 (highest priority to lowest priority) to rank the importance institutions place on specific features of NCAA championships, Division II respondents indicated a clear preference for access, or the opportunity to qualify and participate (average ranking of 1.55). In decending order of support, the other features were cost containment, caliber of competition and quality of the championship event.

Use of Division II funds: A majority (55 percent) believe the current method of distributing the $3 million Division II enhancement fund should be changed.

Respondents also indicated how surplus funds that may become available in Division II should be used, employing the 1-to-5 ranking scale. Division II members expressed a preference (average ranking of 1.85) that surpluses should be added to the Division II enhancement fund for distribution to the membership; other options (in declining order of support) were enhancement of or establishment of Division II programs (2.63 average), enhancement of or establishment of new championships (2.64 average), and establishment of a Division II reserve fund (3.16 average).

Financial aid: More than three-fifths (62 percent) of respondents agreed that Division II should consider alternative financial aid models for athletics.

When asked to rank alternatives on the 1-to-5 scale, the highest average ranking was given to implementation of a need-based financial aid system (1.81 average). In declining order of support, other alternatives were revision of limits on athletics grants in some or all sports under the current financial aid model (2.68 average), subdivision of football and establishment of different scholarship limits in those subdivisions (3.08 average), and subdivision of all team sports and establishment of different scholarship limits in those subdivisions (3.14 average).

Academic requirments: A large majority (84 percent) opposed changes in current Division II initial-eligibility requirements. More than two-thirds of respondents (68 percent) opposed changing current two-year college transfer rules.

What's next

Analysis of the survey continues. The NCAA research staff has been asked to analyze answers by position of respondents, size of schools, the number of sports sponsored by an institution, and conference affiliation, among other criteria (the confidentiality of repondents will be preserved).

Written comments provided by respondents also will be compiled and studied. These comments and additional analyses will be shared with the membership later this summer.

Other highlights

Presidents Commission Division II subcommittee
June 25-26/San Francisco

* Agreed to approach Division II membership compliance in a manner that will enhance membership commitment to compliance but without employing an athletics certification program. The discussion resulted in actions that the presidents believe address the issue in the manner expected by the Division II membership, and in a fiscally responsible fashion.

Specifically, the subcommittee endorsed the concept the enhancing the Division II Institutional Self-Study Guide (ISSG) for the purpose of reviewing compliance. The subcommittee asked the Division II Management Council Transition Team and Division II Steering Committee to "fine-tune" the ISSG both substantively -- including adding questions regarding diversity and sportsmanship and ethical conduct -- and procedurally. The subcommittee agreed that institutions should continue to complete the ISSG every five years, that institutions should continue to keep the completed ISSG and related documents on file at the school, and that institutional chief executive officers should verify completion of the ISSG in writing to the NCAA national office. The subcommittee also asked that consideration be given to requiring institutions to attach to the ISSG a written plan for addressing compliance problems identified in the study.

The subcommittee acknowledged that most of the enhancements to the ISSG can be made by the NCAA Council exercising its authority under Constitution 6.3.1.

* Agreed also that membership compliance efforts should include greater reliance by the Division II membership on compliance programs and services offered by the national office. It suggested that the division's compliance program be expanded to increase opportunities for compliance reviews upon request by Division II institutions and to offer regional workshops for chief executive officers and athletics administrators seeking specific compliance instruction.

* Noted that even if additional staff is required to offer increased compliance services to Division II institutions, this approach should cost significantly less than the $500,000 annually that was set aside for Division II membership compliance through an athletics certification program.

* Noted that the Division II Financial Aid Project Team will hold its first in-person meeting August 5. The project team was formed in response to the adoption of 1996 Convention Proposal No. 29, a resolution that charged Division II with examining alternative financial aid models.

* Noted that a panel formed to begin development of a Division II budget and review fiscal matters will meet August 29. The panel is envisioned as the "precursor" to the proposed Division II Budget/Finance Committee.