At the Embassy Suites Hotel at the Kansas City International Airport March 1, 1997, the members of the new Division III Management Council and Presidents Council gathered for an orientation session. They had not yet had an official meeting, and they had not yet technically taken office under the new governance structure.

But that joint meeting was the beginning. It was the beginning of the Division III strategic plan, and it was the beginning of the division's work toward automatic-qualification principles for championships. Because of that, in many ways the meeting was a new beginning for Division III, whose members had been uncertain about restructuring without ways to address the needs of the division's diverse membership and access to national championships.

"It was a fascinating time," said Ann Die, president of Hendrix College and now the chair of the Division III Presidents Council. "The two groups came together, and we
started with a vision and a mission statement. We found great consensus in our understanding of what Division III is and its importance in amateur athletics and in the NCAA. There was unanimity of mind -- and vision and passion."

The strategic plan, which would be formalized and finalized over the next year or so, provided the road map for the division and its newfound autonomy.

"One of the things that restructuring did for the division was cause us to reassess or redefine our own philosophical position as a division," said John H. Harvey, athletics director at Carnegie Mellon University and a member of a Division III task force to review the Division III philosophy statement before restructuring.

"We knew there would be more separation, and it was a chance to use that to define who we were and where we wanted to go."

John S. Biddiscombe, athletics director at Wesleyan University (Connecticut) served on the former NCAA Council, was on the first Division III Management Council before chairing the group and is now chair of the Division III Initiatives Task Force. Biddiscombe said the creation of the plan changed thinking in Division III.

"In the old structure, we were constantly in a reactive mode," said Biddiscombe. "Under the new structure, there's a sense of accountability. The committees develop action plansand proposals to address priorities within the strategic plan."

The creation of the strategic plan was necessary because, for the first time, Division III truly had the power to chart its own course, Biddiscombe said. "One of the goals of restructuring was to provide more autonomy for the divisions," he said. "With that came the responsibility to be more engaged in setting the direction of Division III and not focus entirely on championships. In order for that engagement to happen, there had to be more presidential involvement and there had to be more direction. The strategic plan was put in place to provide that guidance, and I think the presidents have really latched onto that."

Biddiscombe and Die both noted that the strategic plan continues to set the course for the division's future through its continued use in the governance structure and its use by the Division III Initiatives Task Force.

"Our priorities for the task force: student-athlete welfare, diversity and membership education, have their beginnings in the Division III strategic plan," Die said.

Charting a new course

With restructuring, Division III was able to chart its own course, using the constitutional guarantee of 3.18 percent of the Association's annual general operating revenue in a way the members of the division saw fit.

"I think the No.1 benefit (of restructuring for Division III) is the ability to be recognized as a bona fide part of the Association and given a specific part of the budget to control," said Dennis M. Collins, executive director of the North Coast Athletic Conference and a former member of the Division III Restructuring Task Force and Division III Steering Committee. "That was huge for us. Everybody wants control. This gave us control of our own destiny. We had never had the ability to do that before."

One small example of such control was a decision made on per diems, Collins said. "Before federation, there was one per diem amount for national championships in all divisions," he said. "In Division III, we didn't feel we needed such a high per diem. We would rather see more available spots in the championship than so much per diem, for example."

"The main benefit for Division III in restructuring was gaining greater autonomy," said Stanley P. Caine, president of Adrian College and now a member of the Division III Presidents Council. Caine also has served in the new structure on the Management Council, and he is a former member of the Division III Steering Committee. "We have been able to clarify our philosophy and develop and implement a strategic plan that emphasizes that philosophy. I think in that way we have taken full advantage of greater autonomy."

Daniel T. Dutcher, NCAA chief of staff for Division III, pointed to several key decisions where the division has been able to allocate resources to pursue goals deemed worthwhile by the membership.

"Under the new structure, Division III was able to establish championships access ratios across the board that treated all sports equally. Another key decision has been standardizing the championships experience for student-athletes so that, no matter what sport you participate in, when you reach the national Division III championship you have quality experience," Dutcher said.

"The membership also was able to debate, and then adopt the automatic-qualification principles, which emphasized values such as conference and regional competition and in-season play -- values that are in keeping with the Division III philosophy statement."

A structure for many voices

When restructuring occurred, Division III leadership saw the need for the inclusion of many voices, and it had the autonomy to fashion the division's governance structure in a way that provided more voices would be heard.

Now Division III legislation mandates that the 19-member Management Council be composed of at least eight women and at least eight men, and at least three members of an ethnic minority. At least two CEOs must serve on the Council, as must two student-athletes and at least two faculty athletics representatives and at least nine athletics directors or senior woman administrators. Geographical requirements provide for the inclusion of at least two members (who are not student-athletes) from each Division III geographic region.

Division III committees, such as the Championships Committee, the Financial Aid and Awards Committee and the Budget Committee, report to the Division III Management Council, as do Association-wide committees, such as the Committee on Women's Athletics and the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee. The Management Council is where much of the division's proposals are analyzed and examined in great detail.

Depending on the type of action that is required, most decisions stop with the Management Council, but some key issues are forwarded as recommendations to the Division III Presidents Council. Again, depending on the type of action to be taken and the nature of the matter, the Presidents Council may make the decision, forward legislation to the Convention for the Division III membership to vote, or forward the matter to the Association-wide Executive Committee.

The division thus has much of its day-to-day matters taken care of by athletics administrators on the Management Council, with significant input and policy direction by the Presidents Council. And the division retained the one-school, one-vote concept, permitting members to effect change on the Convention floor as well.

"One of the biggest positives was that (restructuring) gave us the opportunity to shape a governance structure that made sense for us as Division III institutions," said Richard A. Rasmussen, executive secretary of the University Athletic Association. "The new structure was designed to ensure that, in our policy-making bodies, we had a range of voices, a range of perspectives represented. And I think we've achieved that," he said.

Other requirements, such as length-of-term limits and the prohibition against members from the same conference serving on the Management Council in succession were designed to spread opportunities among more individuals and conferences.

"I've been pleased to see the attention given by Division III to matters of diversity and matters of gender. Both symbolically and actually, our structure stresses these values," said James R. Appleton, president of the University of Redlands, who served on the former NCAA Presidents Commission and as co-chair of the Division III Restructuring Task Force.

"We were clearly trying to expand the involvement to more and more people," Harvey said. "We have various requirements in place to, in a sense, force more involvement. Certain requirements have increased the size of committees and their diversity. That, I feel, has succeeded because we're encouraging a lot of new blood. We had some serious discussions about that during restructuring"

"The intent of the new structure was to create more diversity," Biddiscombe said. "The challenge is for the Nominating Committee and the NCAA staff to continue to encourage and seek out those Division III members who can provide input for the good of the division and the Association. We also have to work at times to recycle in some experience, as I think historical perspective also is important."

Those new participants bring another advantage to the division besides just their diversity. More people learning about the inner workings of the Association mean more people who are better able to understand it.

"There are certainly more opportunities for involvement for our membership now," said Carlyle Carter, executive director of the Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and a former Management Council member. "And I think those opportunities give our membership the chance to learn more about the NCAA itself. I think people who serve gain appreciation for how the Association works and how it's supposed to work. I know that happened with me. We are the NCAA, and my involvement with the Association staff and with NCAA committees really drove that fact home.

"I know that I'm a better conference director because of that NCAA involvement. Without federation, I don't know if I would have been able to do that, because there just weren't as many opportunities before. Now, with so many Division III committees and with the corresponding (representation) requirements, it's forced a lot more people to become involved."

Carter's experiences on the Management Council confirmed for him the diversity of the representation as well. One serious concern voiced often by Division III membership before and during restructuring was that the division was large and diverse. The governance structure aids in managing that diversity because so many different types of institutions are represented, Carter said.

"There's diversity (on the Management Council) that we wouldn't have seen had we not had federation. There was diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity, but also in terms of the size of the institution (represented), the type of institution -- public and private -- and the philosophy of the institution. To me, that was very healthy," Carter said.

"I think the formal structure has done a good job of involving presidents, athletics directors, faculty athletics representatives, senior woman administrators and student-athletes," Die said. "Each of these constituents has ample opportunity to push forward agendas and take positions.

"Also, there are two unique features to the Division III Management Council: We have presidents who sit on the Council and we have voting student-athletes who sit on the Council as well. I think it's been important to have that representation, and I think having presidents on the Management Council facilitates communication between the Presidents Council and the Management Council and has been a key element in having the two Councils work hand in glove with each other."

Rasmussen agreed.

"Having some presidents actively involved in the Management Council, dealing with that level of detail, has been advantageous to both groups," he said. "Some people, like Stan Caine (who was one of the first presidents to serve on the Management Council), have been able to have a foot in both worlds, making a tremendous difference."

The Management Council and Presidents Council also meet jointly annually at the Convention, and the Presidents Council chair and vice-chair sit in on conference calls with the Management Council chairs and the NCAA governance staff before each Management Council meeting.

"Those practices create a line of open communication," Die said. "I know before the Management Council meeting what's on the agenda, what's on the mind of the membership."

In addition to formalizing presidential involvement, the new structure clearly outlines the role of presidents.

"Under the old structure, there was a lack of clarity about how we would work together," Caine said. "And there was a lot of tension between groups. On the other hand, I don't think we've yet accomplished the goal of getting more presidents significantly involved. That's still a challenge before us."

One Association, three divisions

For a time during restructuring, it wasn't clear whether Association-wide committees would be retained or would be federated. Would there be one NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics, for example, or would there be three -- each concerned with just one division? It also was not clear how many other functions would be federated. Division III members were adamant about keeping an Association staff, catastrophic-injury insurance and Association-wide committees, all of which ultimately were retained.

Another concern, voiced frequently by Division III members and others, was that the Association would lose its sense of unity.

"The one issue a lot of us were concerned about with restructuring was a loss of the sense of a whole Association, and I think that has happened," Rasmussen said. "We've gained some things in federation, but one of the things we lost was the sense of having one Association. We did have a sense that there was a connection, that we were all a part of intercollegiate athletics and we had that in common. We have lost some of that."

Rasmussen pointed to the lack of interdivisional meetings, the loss of Division I attendance at the NCAA Convention, and simply the loss of opportunities to exchange ideas with NCAA members from other divisions.

"Like many things in life," he said, "there are trade-offs, and perhaps that loss is more keenly felt by those involved in the governance structure than the entire membership. I don't know. But I do know that there is a sense of disconnect now that wasn't there before. But given the chance to go back (to the old structure), I don't think I would. What we have has enough significant positives that I think it far outweighs the negatives."

Harvey, who served on the old NCAA Council with members from other divisions, also feels that loss.

"In the restructured atmosphere, especially at Convention, we don't even have the chance to rub elbows anymore. I think that, in a sense, there was a cultural rubbing of elbows that helped all three divisions. I felt like those of us in Division III learned quite a bit from hearing about Division I issues in particular, and I think those in other divisions learned quite a bit from us."

Harvey, who now serves on the Association-wide Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Committee, sees Association-wide committees as having an important role in fostering that interdivisional communication.

"I think it's important to seek ways to retain that 'interconnectedness' between divisions," he said. "I initially wasn't in favor of as much federation as we got. I enjoyed the benefits of interaction, and I still think we could use more of it. I believe that composite discussions have benefits for the entire Association that we should not overlook. I think we all could benefit from one another."

Appleton agrees that the lack of interaction is a loss, both for the division and the Association as a whole.

"I think there was always a concern (by members of other divisions) that Division III members were exercising more than their share of influence on committees because of the size of the division. When matters such as (athletics) financial aid or eligibility came up, there were those who argued that our positions were ill-founded because it didn't affect us. However, I think it was helpful to hear the voices of those who are perhaps a bit more objective."

Caine agreed, noting that there are not many places remaining where people from different divisions can discuss common issues. "We need to maintain a common vision of intercollegiate athletics," he said. "And in this sense, I suspect that Division III has less influence over the Association as a whole than it has ever had."

One benefit of federation is that NCAA staff is devoted to each division -- a chief of staff, an assistant chief of staff and an executive assistant.

"To have two people like Dan Dutcher and Bridget Belgiovine devoted to Division III, that's been a tremendous benefit," Collins said. "The Association has taken care of us with our own administrators, and we're lucky to have those two people."

There seems to be greater communition within the committee structure, even with matters that are Association-wide. Other issues of how the divisions can work together for the good of the Association, such as the role of the NCAA Executive Committee, are still works in progress.

"In a way, it's too early to judge some of this," Caine said. "I think we're still evolving.