The director of athletics is the pre-eminent leader in the daily administration of any Division I intercollegiate athletics program. Yet the procedure to develop and adopt Division I legislation and the selection process for membership on Division I governance groups often leave ADs out of the loop.

As a result, decisions often are made and legislation often is crafted that does not fully reflect interests of the Division I-A director of athletics, such as competitive equity and cost management. This is not an issue of control but rather the recognition of appropriate professional influence as decisions are made regarding the administration of Division I-A athletics.

The Division I-A Athletic Directors Association believes the current Division I governance structure does not meet the needs of I-A programs. At its 2002 annual meeting, the group voted unanimously to create an ad hoc committee to study the structure. The group also consulted with Division I-A faculty athletics representatives, who expressed similar concerns that the current Division I governance structure falls short of promoting appropriate institutional involvement.

Thus, the Division I-A Athletic Directors Association sent a memo to Division I-A presidents in March indicating the association's resolve to study the existing governance structure, including the examination of other options, such as a single legislative cycle and/or the ability for institution representatives to vote at the annual NCAA Convention on legislative proposals (votes to be counted by subdivision when requested) and have those votes be used by the Division I Board of Directors in its decision-making process. Athletics directors believe such recommendations can be implemented while retaining the composition and authority of the Board of Directors.

The problem with the current governance structure is two-fold. First, when the NCAA restructured in 1997, the one-school/one-vote principle for approving legislation was replaced by a system based on conference representation. Thus, legislation is approved by an 18-member Board of Directors rather than a vote of all Division I members at the annual Convention.

Second, the process of selecting individuals to participate on the various Division I governance bodies has diminished the involvement of athletics directors.

To get a better understanding of both issues, the Division I-A Athletic Directors Association surveyed its membership, as well as Division
I-A faculty athletics representatives and athletics administrators. After receiving more than 200 responses, several conclusions were apparent, the most obvious of which was that respondents strongly believe an annual legislative cycle would be the most efficient method of governance.

In the current structure, the period from formal recommendation of proposed legislation to the effective date of new legislation often spans 18 months. We clearly remember the rationale behind the the two-cycle system, but the complex process for submitting, reviewing, commenting upon and referring legislative proposals is confusing and difficult to track.

The survey also indicated the following:

* Most respondents do not feel adequately informed as new legislation is processed, and more than half believe they do not have an opportunity to express their support or concern during the development of legislation.

* Most respondents do not know where proposed legislation is as it passes through the system despite regular attempts to monitor the progress of proposed legislation.

* While many respondents believe their conference attempts to keep members adequately informed regarding the development of new legislation, an equally high percentage of respondents believe otherwise.

* Most respondents do not adequately understand proposed legislation before it becomes adopted; however, a higher percentage of respondents attempt to maintain a system to keep their staff as informed as possible.

* Almost 100 percent of the respondents are not comfortable with the current legislative process, and an equally high percentage of respondents prefer the former legislative process that was in place before 1997.

* Almost 100 percent of the respondents believe their institutional vote was more meaningful in the former legislative process.

* A high percentage of respondents are not satisfied with (1) the representative structure based on conference representation, (2) the lack of voting opportunity at the NCAA Convention, (3) the two-cycle legislative process and (4) the lack of a Division I-A majority vote.

* A high percentage of respondents are satisfied with the president-driven Board of Directors having final authority to approve legislation.

* Most respondents currently discuss proposed legislation with their president/chancellor; however, a significantly higher percentage of respondents discussed proposed legislation with their president/chancellor in the former system (100 percent before 1997).

* A high percentage of respondents attended the NCAA Convention before 1997 (almost 100 percent for athletics directors).

* Almost 100 percent of respondents reviewed proposed legislation before attending the NCAA Convention, and they discussed the proposals with their president/chancellor and athletics staff.

* Almost 100 percent of respondents indicated their president/chancellor is less informed and involved now than before 1997, and that a majority of the presidents/chancellors did attend the NCAA Convention before restructuring.

* Almost 100 percent of respondents said their presidents/chancellors believe they were in control of their institutional vote before 1997, regardless of their attendance at the NCAA Convention.

* Almost 100 percent of respondents indicated they reconsidered their initial position regarding proposed legislation after listening to the debate/discussion at the NCAA Convention when proposed legislation was presented, and 100 percent of the athletic directors and faculty athletics representatives indicated they better understood the proposed legislation as a result of listening to the debate/discussion during the NCAA Convention.

These survey results certainly do indicate a desire for change among Division I-A athletics administrators, and the Division I-A Athletic Directors Association strongly supports the recommendations described in this article.

And while the survey results seem to be emphatic, we nonetheless have offered our most sincere intention to support Division I decisions regarding the governance and legislative processes. We hope, however, that whatever outcome emerges is one that re-engages all presidents, athletics directors, faculty athletics representatives and senior woman administrators into one of our most important functions.

Dutch Baughman is the executive director of the Division I-A Athletic Directors Association.