SAN DIEGO -- Considerable time was spent during the Division III business sessions on six discussion topics identified as especially important to the Division III membership during the upcoming year and beyond.

Division III members also benefitted from a divisional forum, held before the business sessions, on developing positive student-athlete behavior.

Strategies for successful completion of the Division III Institutional Self-Study Guide (ISSG), which must be completed once every five years, were address in a discussion session on the ISSG and Division III financial aid.

Marilyn Skrivseth, director of athletics at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, and chair of the Division III Membership Committee, recommended that an institution beginning the self-study process form a committee comprised of the chief executive officer, director of athletics, senior woman administrator, faculty athletics representative, other athletics department staff members, student-athletes, and admissions and financial aid staff.

Skrivseth indicated that the committee may feel the need to include other campus constituencies as it continues its work, and that upon completion of the self-study, copies should be distributed to key departments and possibly to prospective student-athletes. She also reminded the audience that assistance in completing the ISSG is available from NCAA national office staff.

Jeff Ankrom, faculty athletics representative at Wittenberg University and chair of the Division III Committee on Financial Aid and Awards, summed up the thoughts of the committee.

"We believe we are at a crossroads. At first, we wanted to ask tough questions about how financial aid was being distributed at institutions," he said. "What we quickly realized was that there was much education that needed to be done first."

Walter Johnson, director of athletics at North Central College and incoming chair of the Division III Management Council, announced that 318 of 423 active and provisional members have submitted their financial aid awards for review.

"We have found many different methodologies for distributing finan-
cial aid among institutions and broad language in award descriptions," Johnson said.

"We have tried to be fair and diligent during our reviews, and operate under the assumption that institutions are doing the right thing."

Gender and diversity

Linda Moulton, director of athletics at Clark University (Massachusetts) and a member of the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics, led a discussion of gender and ethnic diversity in the division by reviewing the demographics of various segments of the Division III membership.

She pointed out that there were 215 persons serving on Division III committees in the fall of 1999 -- 114 males and 101 females. Of the 215, 21 were ethnic minorities.

She also pointed out that demographics for Division III athletics administrators as a whole illustrated some of the concerns of the division.

In Division III overall, 70.7 percent of the athletics directors are non-minority males, 4.4 percent are minority males, 24 percent are non-minority females and 1 percent are minority females.

As for senior woman administrators in the division, 93.8 percent are non-minorities.

And, 95 percent of faculty athletics representatives in Division III are non-minorities.

"When you look around the room today, it is not a diverse group," said Eugene Marshall Jr., director of athletics at Ramapo College. "We need to get more minorities in the pipeline.

"When we serve as positive role models to our student-athletes, we inspire them to pursue careers in coaching and athletics administration."

Cela Oceguera, a student-athlete at the University of California, San Diego, and vice-chair of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, made an additional point concerning athletics staff diversity.

"If an institution wants to recruit minority student-athletes, it must have a staff that includes minorities," Oceguera said.

Deregulation

Suzanne Coffey, chair of the Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee and director of athletics at Bates College, announced that the 2000 Convention was an important step in Phase II of the deregulation effort.

The membership approved the majority of proposals in a deregulation package presented during the legislative portion of the Division III business session.

Coffey said the committee's attention would now shift to issues regarding the format of the Division III Manual.

Among the items the group will consider are: a glossary of terms in order to avoid conflicts within the Manual; addition of key and cross references; the use of a bylaw template to correct numbering and sequencing inconsistencies; and the standardization of bylaw language.

Other issues yet to be addressed include eliminating numbering gaps in the Division III Manual, implementing a federated legislative database and investigating the possibility of having the Manual published in CD/ROM format and included on the NCAA Web site.

In this session, the membership had their first chance to hear about preliminary work conducted thus far by the new Division III task force on amateurism.

Task force chair Thomas Weingartner, director of athletics at the University of Chicago, gave several reasons for the creation of the task force, including: ongoing deregulation efforts; the priority of student-athlete welfare; and in response to a recommendation of the student-athlete reinstatement subcommittee.

The task force has been given a two-year time frame in which to conduct its work. Discussion of possible legislative models is to take place at the 2001 Convention, with proposed legislation to be dealt with at the 2002 Convention.

Weingartner reminded the group that the task force will only be dealing with rules regarding pre-enrollment activities.

Task force member JoAnn Andregg, associate director of athletics at the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota), said the group has identified the following core values to drive its evaluation of amateurism rules: clarity, common sense and consistency; prospective student-athlete welfare; competitive fairness; and consistency with the Division III philosophy.

Jennifer Strawley, a student-athlete reinstatement representative for the NCAA, reviewed possible changes that may be made by Divisions I and II as the result of the work of their amateurism task forces, as well as Division III precedent involving amateurism violations.

Athletics performance enhancement

Gary Green, team physician at Pepperdine University and for U.S. Soccer, and chair of the NCAA subcommittee on drug testing and education, relayed considerable information to the Division III membership concerning the NCAA Drug-Testing Program, along with findings from the most recent survey concerning drug use at NCAA institutions and recent additions to the banned list of substances.

Green stressed the need for better response from Division III institutions when the next survey is conducted in 2001. The response rate from the division for the 1997 NCAA Survey of Use and Abuse Habits of NCAA Student-Athletes was just more than 55 percent.

One of the key findings from 1997 was that Division III student-athletes reported the highest usage for nearly all of the drugs listed on the survey.

Also according to Green, there have been five additions to the list of banned drugs in the last two years, including androstenediol, norandrostenediol, androstenedione and norandrostenedione. Green also reminded the audience that creatine is not on the banned list, but it is a nonpermissible benefit according to Division III legislation.

Currently, drug testing in Division III is conducted only at championships events. Green indicated, however, that future enhancements to the drug-testing program may include year-round testing for Division III football.

NCAA public affairs plan

Wallace I. Renfro, NCAA director of public relations, shared findings from the recently completed survey concerning public perceptions of the NCAA. Athletics directors, coaches, student-athletes, sports information directors and media were among those questioned over an 18-month period.

Some of the key findings of the study included that the majority of those interviewed do not believe that the NCAA does not make student-athlete welfare one of its priorities, that coaches are one of the most influential groups in intercollegiate athletics, and that the media often turns to other media outlets for its information concerning the NCAA.

Danita Edwards, NCAA vice-president of public affairs, outlined components of the Association's public affairs plan.

"This is a process that will take up to six years to implement fully. We plan to develop closer working relationships with coaches, since they are in the media spotlight.

"One of the key components of all facets of the plan will be one-on-one communication. By meeting with the media face-to-face, we hope to convince them to come to the national office staff, or to you at the institutional and conference level, for accurate information regarding NCAA matters."

Division III forum

The focus of the forum, held the day before the first Division III business session, was on developing positive student-athlete behavior. Speakers and attendees focused on the development and implementation of institutional and conference codes of conduct.

Megan Stevens, a student-athlete at the State University of New York at Cortland and a member of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, stressed the need for such codes.

"One of the tenets of the Division III philosophy is to encourage the development of sportsmanship and positive societal attitudes in all constituents, including student-athletes, coaches, administrative personnel and spectators," she said.

"In that regard, it is imperative that you involve student-athletes to the greatest degree possible while planning and developing your campus and conference codes of conduct. Student-athletes are part of the problem. Therefore, it is both logical and essential that you make us part of the solution."

Carol Wittmeyer, associate vice-president for university relations at Alfred University, reviewed several of the findings of Alfred's national survey on initiation rites. The survey found that 80 percent of the student-athletes surveyed were subject to some form of hazing, of which 60 percent involved alcohol.

"We need to see hazing for what it is -- acts that are degrading, humiliating and often dangerous," Wittmeyer said.

According to Wittmeyer, Alfred is attempting to overcome the issue by sending a clear anti-hazing message, expecting accountability on behalf of team captains and offering team-building initiation activities led by team captains and coaches.

Michael Josephson, president and founder of the Josephson Institute of Ethics and Character Counts! Coalition, pointed out some of goals athletics administrators should have for their programs.

"One of the functions of education is to develop sound values and principles so the students can function in society. Your student-athletes are future leaders. Think of each one of them as an ambassador of your program."

Josephson reviewed several of the goals included in the Arizona Sports Summit Accord, a series of principles and values that was the result of a conference convened in May 1999, titled "Pursuing Victory with Honor."

Among the points Josephson made was that it is the duty of sports leaders -- including coaches, administrators and officials -- to promote sportsmanship and foster good character by teaching, enforcing, advocating and modeling these ethical principles.

"The tendency in regards to character building is to go downward if you are not vigilant," Josephson said. "To not enforce character shows no character at all."