It seems that for every complaint that the Division I Manual is too big and complicated, two new pieces of legislation are proposed. And for every time an institutional or conference compliance coordinator successfully navigates the Manual for a legislative clarification, three others defer the decision to the national office membership services staff.

Such is the regulatory nature of the NCAA, where rules are complex because almost every conceivable situation is legislated, and where compliance is a threatening endeavor because enforcement looms if a mistake is made. The paranoia about retribution is so prevalent, in fact, that the membership services staff spends much of its time interpreting legislation for callers who likely know the answer but seek validation -- or who know the answer and seek a different outcome -- and entities within the Division I governance structure find themselves wrangling with process minutia more than substantive issues.

That has prompted the membership services staff and the Management Council's administrative committee (Ad Com) to discuss the issue and ultimately suggest an examination of the "regulatory culture" in Division I to see if there are ways to get the Division I membership to assume greater ownership and empowerment in the adoption, interpretation, application and enforcement of NCAA legislation.

In response to the issues raised, changes are being suggested to provide for routine membership and committee comment on certain procedural and policy issues that aren't necessarily prescribed in the bylaws.

An example of what frustrates the Ad Com occurred last summer when a seemingly small issue turned into a big one. At issue was a certification test that coaches are required to take before they can hit the recruiting trail. Current rules require an athletics department representative to monitor the test, but the Ivy Group wanted to eliminate that requirement to provide coaches with greater flexibility for taking the tests by computer.

Jeff Orleans, executive director of the Ivy Group and a member of Ad Com, said the league proposed the change to the NCAA staff, but the staff was hearing from faculty athletics representatives who wanted the rule left alone.

"So here's the membership asking the staff to do entirely different things," Orleans said. "This is an interpretative matter, not legislation, so the staff is in good faith trying to figure out what cross section to ask in order to reach a decision. It was hard to figure all that out."

Ad Com Chair Chris Plonsky said it was an example of a situation in which neither answer would result in a competitive advantage. In other words, the certification test could be given with or without an athletics representative without anybody gaining a competitive advantage.

"But right now, campuses and conferences are being bogged down with phone calls and e-mails that just cause us to shake our heads and wonder why a group like Ad Com needs to consider something like this," said Plonsky, associate director of athletics at the University of Texas at Austin. "The culture out there is such that people feel too paralyzed to have their own personnel make decisions for fear that the wrong interpretation could lead to problems."

Thus, calls like the certification test question, and hundreds of others, come in to the membership services staff, which seems to be an indication that something needs to change.

Several Ad Com members, including Plonsky and Orleans, will serve on an ad hoc committee that includes conference and institutional personnel assigned with reviewing the regulatory culture and examining the roles stakeholders play in shaping that culture.

Understanding the culture

Ad Com member Chris Monasch believes part of the complexity in understanding the regulatory culture may be the membership's general misunderstanding of the interpretive process. The Division I legislative cycle is complicated enough, but once legislation is passed and questions are posed about various bylaws, some institutional personnel are confused about what becomes binding.

If a question becomes important enough, it goes through the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Legislative Review/Interpretations (LRIS) and becomes an official interpretation, which is binding.

"Anything beyond that is to some extent a judgment call on the part of whomever is interpreting the issue," Monasch said. "When we call the staff and ask for advice, they give what is called an advisory opinion. That isn't binding. But some of the membership always wants to hear an official answer.

"We need to get beyond interpreting every factual nuance that comes along. That's where the membership complains, 'Well, I got two different answers.' That raises the issue of whether you asked two different questions. That's the area we're trying to clean up. We need to trust our own judgment."

David Schnase, who has been with the NCAA membership services staff for seven years and is now a director, said the regulatory culture becomes snarled when people get so caught up in minutia that they lose track of the overriding principle, which is not to gain competitive or recruiting advantages. Sometimes, he said, members also want an official answer from the NCAA, even if they know the answer already, so they can report back to their constituents that the NCAA is the entity that said no, and not them.

"Sometimes, even if callers think they know the answer, they have to give the perception to their people that they're trying everything within their power to be an advocate," Schnase said. "They know the answer is no, but they want to show their people that they're going to raise every point possible to see if they can get the NCAA to say yes."

Then there's the fear of enforcement. Is the NCAA penalizing people because they're making reasonable, educated decisions that turn out to be inconsistent with the intent of the rules? Schnase emphasized that the "advisory opinions" coming from the membership services staff are just that -- advisory -- and not binding. "Institutions receiving advice may act contrary to the opinion if a reasonable basis exists, and no violation results," he said. "Maybe one of the outcomes of the review is to put some sunshine on what it is we do. Part of the problem is that not everyone has a clear understanding of all the processes -- enforcement and interpretive."

Anticipated outcomes

Once the ad hoc committee comes up with a snapshot of the current regulatory culture, then it can suggest improvements. Perhaps an outcome is that more "advisory opinions" should be made locally. Perhaps a change in the Division I legislative process would reduce the sense of "disenfranchisement" and gives more campus personnel a better understanding and ownership of legislation. Or perhaps it's as simple as better educating the membership about the interpretation and enforcement processes.

Orleans even talked about establishing a process whereby interpretations would be trotted out for "membership comment" in order to ensure that everyone had a chance for input. For example, he said, in the certification test matter, the staff would make a decision about whom, if anyone, would monitor the test, then put the decision before the membership.

"After a comment period, it might be that half the membership says the test can be taken by computer with no monitor and half the membership says you need a uniformed police officer present. But at least the membership would have the chance for input, the staff would hear that input, and then the staff would make the decision it thinks is right, which still is a function we as members ask the staff to exercise," he said.

"The membership ought to be less paranoid if it clearly understands that it has an opportunity and a responsibility to comment and that the staff has an identified way of hearing those comments," Orleans said. "I would hope, too, that the staff would feel less paranoid if they know that once we have that opportunity to counsel, they have to make the decision they have to make. We have to own the informing of the decisions, and that lets the staff own the making of the decisions."

Such ownership is among the goals of the review. Other goals are increased proficiency in all processes, which could include giving institutions the autonomy and the discretion to make decisions on their own without having to seek formal approval from the conference or the NCAA. Another stated goal is to make the various participants in the regulatory process achieve a greater sense of "mutuality and purpose."

Schnase said that mutuality is key in enabling institutions to trust their own judgment when it comes to interpreting the spirit of the rules. He said that may lead to institutions adhering to the big picture instead of getting caught up in a million little ones.

"We have so many policies and procedures in place that when somebody asks if they can do something, common sense tells us yes, absolutely, but our policies and procedures are such that we can't say yes," Schnase said. "We're so accustomed to guidance by written instruction that we can't think beyond the letter of the law.

"The point of this review is to make sure everybody is working cooperatively and collaboratively toward the same goal, which is to adhere to the spirit of the rules."

The ad hoc group likely will include current and former chairs of select committees (for example, the LRIS, the Division I Administrative Review Subcommittee and the Division I Committee on Infractions), along with a diverse representation of campus constituents.

Conference commissioners are being asked to nominate individuals to serve on the group, which is expected to provide a preliminary report by April 2003 that would be reviewed at NCAA Regional Seminars, conference meetings and at other professional meetings through the spring and early summer. A final report could emerge by October 2003.

Points of emphasis

The following are examples of questions that the ad hoc committee charged with examining the regulatory culture in Division I will address:

What are the expectations of the various constituencies (institutional staff members, conference offices, national office staff) as they relate to the work that should be done by the national office, conference offices and institutions? How do these expectations differ? What contributes to these expectations not being met?

How does the interplay between providing/receiving rules interpretations assistance and enforcement services affect the culture?

In what ways does the "level playing field" concept compromise "student-athlete welfare" concerns?

Is the regulatory culture in intercollegiate athletics different from other areas in higher education, such as the regulation of federal financial aid guidelines?

What impact does the legislative cycle have on the regulatory culture?

What is the level of understanding about the interpretative process? Do individuals in the membership have a good understanding of the nature of "advisory" opinions?

Are there specific bylaws that should be treated differently (more or less autonomy at local level)?

How would you assess the current level of "rules knowledge" among key constituents, including student-athletes, athletics directors, compliance coordinators, NCAA staff, etc.? What steps can be taken to improve their knowledge?

Is the perceived difference in "practical" knowledge of those on campus and in conference offices and the "bookish" knowledge of NCAA staffers real? If so, how does this impact the culture, and what can be done to change this?

What role does the potential impact of self-reporting violations play as it relates to institutional decision-making on the application of NCAA rules?