ORLANDO, Florida -- The Division III business session at the 2001 NCAA Convention was consolidated into one day and included presentations and discussions on several areas of interest to the Division III membership, in addition to the legislation voting session. Discussion sessions during the business session included the future of Division III financial aid compliance procedures, amateurism deregulation, the work of the Division III Initiatives Task Force, automatic qualification for Division III championships, the championships site-selection process, and an introduction to the new NCAA Legislative Services Database (LSDBi).

Georgette DeVeres, associate vice-president of admission and financial aid at Claremont McKenna-Harvey Mudd-Scripps Colleges, gave the membership an update on the current financial aid compliance process in Division III and its challenges.

"The current process does not accomplish the goal of determining whether aid is being awarded consistently and whether aid packages for the student-athlete population are comparable to aid packages for the general student population."

Terry Rupert, athletics director at Wilmington College (Ohio), explained the content of Proposal No. 46, which he said is intended to simplify Bylaw 15 and eliminate the need for institutions to submit awards of circumstance and nonathletics achievement awards to the NCAA.

"Proposal 46 does not discourage institutional autonomy by creating a new standard for financial aid," Rupert said. "It does not create additional requirements for institutions and it does not create additional costs."

Rupert also presented a model for a future possible compliance process that would include an annual institutional audit with a review of 10 percent of the student-athlete files, selected at random. Estimated cost of the audit by institution is $3,000-$5,000, depending on the size of the institution.

Rupert reminded the membership that the Financial Aid Committee's intent was to receive input on prospective models and then propose legislation for a membership vote at the 2002 NCAA Convention.

"We're hoping to refine them based on membership input we receive," he said.

Several members of the membership commented asked questions and sought clarification on the proposed audit model. With the membership's subsequent adoption of Proposal No. 46-2, the Financial Aid and Awards Committee's deadline to develop the model is June 1.

Initiatives Task Force

John S. Biddiscombe, athletics director at Wesleyan University (Connecticut), presented a summary of the numerous programs and grants that would be made available through the work of the Division III Initiatives Task Force.

"These resources are intended to provide creative new programming to address the three planning priorities of diversity, membership education and student-athlete welfare," he said.

Biddiscombe noted that the task force, composed of 14 volunteers from the membership, included five presidents, four athletics directors, two faculty athletics representatives, one conference commissioner and two members of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

The three-year total for all initiatives is about $8.4 million. Diversity initiatives account for about $2.6 million; membership education initiatives account for about $2.1 million; and student-athlete welfare initiatives account for almost $3 million. The task force also has planned $800,000 for staffing and administration to develop the initiatives.

Amateurism Task Force

Steve Erber, athletics director at Muhlenberg College and a member of the Division III Amateurism Task Force, explained the core values of the task force as well as the issues the task force identified in regards to amateurism.

"Our goal was to first, determine the Division III philosophy of amateurism and possible legislative reform. Second, and I want to clarify that this was secondary, was to assess the impact of possible changes in the amateurism rules in Divisions I and II."

The four issues identified were as:

Current rules attempt to control activities of prospects over which the NCAA has no control.

Current rules lack clarity, consistency and common sense.

The most severe sanctions apply to those who "intend" to professionalize, and it's very difficult to assess intent.

Current rules do not support the Division III philosophy regarding deregulation and student-athlete welfare.

Tom Weingartner, athletics director at the University of Chicago, detailed several examples of the application of current NCAA amateurism rules and the inconsistency of those rules.

Weingartner also detailed the recommendations of the task force regarding the signing of a contract, entering a professional draft, the seasons of competition rule, competition with professionals, the acceptance of prize money and the acceptance of pay for play.

"Our recommendation is to allow prospective student-athletes to accept pay for play. There is no competitive advantage. We believe this would be appropriate for prospective student-athletes. And I want to emphasize prospective. None of these recommendations of the task force would apply to current student-athletes."

"Remember that the reason for our committee is really grounded in the Division III Strategic Plan," said Joann Andregg of the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) and a member of the NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee. "We are not changing our philosophy on amateurism. The rules simply need to be changed to reflect the current world in which we live."

Andregg and Weingartner also asked the membership for feedback and recommendations for future direction.

"We need your feedback and a sense of direction from the Division III membership," Andregg said. "We need to know what areas of deregulation you would accept."

Championships issues

After voting on Division III legislation, the membership returned to discuss championships matters. Joy Reighn, director of athletics at Rowan University, reviewed the automatic-qualification timeline, noting that the Division III governance structure will review automatic qualification during 2001-02. No significant changes would be implemented until at least 2002-03.

Reighn listed a number of suggestions and ideas that the membership has forwarded to the Division III Championships Committee so far. Several members of the audience participated in a question-and-answer session with Reighn in which she clarified current practices and accepted suggestions for the committee's review.

Chris Pohl, NCAA director of championships, explained the committee site-selection process for championships, including the inner workings of details such as the facility questionnaire, budget charts and mileage charts used to assist the Championships Committee in site selection.

Pohl also encouraged members to think about the concept of a "sports festival," whereby several championships would be held at one time and in one location.

"There are some who favor that sort of an approach, and we'd be interested in hearing your feedback," she said.

Pohl encouraged administrators to submit paperwork if there was an interest in hosting a Division III championship. "If you think you'd like to host, but you're not sure if your facility is championship-ready, go ahead and fill out the forms," she said.

A panel presentation titled "Hosting a championship," concluded the discussion on the Division III championships issues. Panelists were Susan Bassett, athletics director at William Smith College; Ed Farrington, athletics director at Western Connecticut State University; and Walter Johnson, athletics director at North Central College.

Topics discussed by the panelists included the application process, game management, staffing, the championship facility and community involvement.