Members of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association (FARA) executive committee explored ways in which their organization can have a greater influence on academic-based issues within the NCAA during an April 17-18 meeting in Indianapolis.

Of primary interest to the group was the news that Division I has finalized its single annual cycle for legislative proposals, which features a January time frame for initial consideration of proposals, followed by a 60-day membership comment period and an April action date.

That works well for FARA, especially since the organization's primary discussion/review gathering is its Fall Forum each November. The single annual legislative cycle in Division I will allow FARA to develop positions on proposed legislation at the Fall Forum before the Division I Management Council takes initial action on the proposals in January. FARA members found that to be an effective system before the NCAA federated its governance structure in 1997, and it still works for the Divisions II and III legislative timetables since they are geared toward the NCAA Convention.

But FARA has struggled to keep up with Division I legislation since it was based on multiple cycles -- quarterly in the early days of restructuring and currently two six-month cycles each year. The complicated cycles have caused many Division I faculty representatives to feel disenfranchised from the legislative process. Other Division I athletics administrators have expressed the same sentiment over the past few years as well, which was a factor in the division returning to the single cycle similar to the one that existed before restructuring.

The new single cycle, which begins this summer with a July 15 deadline for conferences to submit proposals, also may re-energize FARA's Division I legislative review committee, which existed previously but had become largely ineffective in recent years.

"FARA has not been providing a forum for Division I faculty reps to discuss proposed legislation because of the timing of the current legislative cycle," said FARA President Edward Streb, faculty athletics representative at Rowan University. "The single cycle will change that."

The FARA executive committee also discussed another Division I matter, that of the academic reform package currently working its way through the Division I governance structure. Executive committee members voiced their support of the enhanced initial-eligibility and progress-toward-degree requirements adopted last year in Division I, as well as the incentives/disincentives concept that could be ready by next year.

Streb said that though the package is a Division I initiative, Divisions II and III FARA members were enthusiastic about supporting it as well.

"The way I see it," Streb said, "it's the NCAA logo on my Division III basketball court, too. We're all painted with a broad brush when the public looks at NCAA institutions."

The group also participated in a "strategic-thinking" session that is part of the broader NCAA strategic-planning process. That process, which is designed to gather input from as many NCAA constituents as possible, will produce a comprehensive long-range plan for the NCAA within the next year. A seven-member group from the FARA executive committee (Streb and two representatives each from Divisions I, II and III) has been invited to participate in a follow-up session in September.

"Let me assure you, FARA appreciates being part of this dialogue," Streb said.

For a more complete summary of the FARA executive committee strategic-thinking sessions, see the strategic-planning update on page 22.

In other action, the FARA executive committee:

Met with NCAA President Myles Brand to discuss FARA's role in NCAA governance and the role of FARs on individual campuses.

Reviewed a survey instrument developed by NCAA staff to study tendencies regarding sports wagering on campuses. Faculty athletics representatives will administer the survey this fall, similar to the way the current drug-use survey is administered.

Agreed to discuss further at the Fall Forum a resolution regarding the appointment of faculty athletics representatives at member institutions. The resolution emphasizes the following four areas: (1) more university CEO involvement in the selection of the FAR and more interaction between the FAR and the university's governing body, (2) no limit on term of service, (3) preference for the FAR to be a tenured active member of the teaching faculty, and (4) sensitivity to gender and diversity when considering candidates.

Discussed how to prompt more minority involvement in the organization.