A California legislative proposal that could require 47 universities and colleges in that state to discontinue membership in the NCAA has stirred opposition from those institutions and sparked efforts to inform legislators about current Association initiatives to deal with specific complaints raised in the proposal.

Those efforts include an October 28 meeting hosted by the Pacific-10 Conference for legislators and representatives of the affected institutions.

Known as Senate Bill 193, the proposal now is assigned to the California State Assembly's Committee on Higher Education, which held a hearing on the bill July 8 and then agreed to postpone further consideration until the 2004 legislative session.

The proposal already has won approval in the 40-member California State Senate, where it was introduced in late April and voted on a month later.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Kevin Murray, would prohibit California universities and colleges from membership in any organization -- including the NCAA -- whose rules restrict student-athlete grants-in-aid, health insurance coverage, agent relationships and transfers to other institutions. The bill also contains a provision intended to protect student-athletes from enforcement sanctions for rules violations in which those student-athletes are not involved.

If the Higher Education Committee approves the bill, the proposal could be reviewed by at least one other committee before advancing for consideration -- perhaps as early as February 2004 -- by the 80-member State Assembly. Should the legislation gain approval from the Assembly, it would return to the Senate for final consideration and then would require the governor's signature to be enacted.

Representatives of the Association and its California member institutions are seeking to persuade legislators to halt the bill's advance.

"What we're hoping for is that the committee sees how harmful the bill is to student-athletes, and sees the efforts that are being made to address what are common areas of concern," said Abe Frank, NCAA director of government relations, whose office actively is working to provide California legislators with information in response to the proposal.

Some of the complaints featured in the bill recently have been addressed by new NCAA legislation or are under active review within NCAA governance groups.

"Senate Bill 193 poses a serious problem to the NCAA's 47 member institutions in the state of California, plus members of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, the state's community colleges and any conference with members in the state because it would prohibit application of several major rules of those bodies by their member institutions and cause their expulsion from the associations," said Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen. "If rules governing financial aid, health insurance, agents, transfers and application of penalties to student-athletes were not applied, an institution would become ineligible for NCAA championships and other programs and benefits."

NCAA addressing concerns

Sen. Murray has acknowledged that the proposal resulted from efforts by a group named the Collegiate Athletes Coalition to promote what it calls a "student-athlete bill of rights." The CAC is led by former University of California, Los Angeles, football student-athletes Ramogi Huma and Ryan Roques.

In introducing the bill, Murray said it seeks to address "the inequitable treatment of California's student-athletes and removes some of the most archaic restrictions placed on colleges by the NCAA."

The provisions of the proposed legislation, and current NCAA activities pertaining to those provisions:

Permit student-athletes to receive legitimate earnings from on- or off-campus employment without limit.

An NCAA Division I Committee on Financial Aid proposal that became effective August 1 permits such earnings except those generated as a result of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal following an athlete has gained resulting from athletics ability

Permit student-athletes to receive financial aid up to actual cost of attendance.

The Division I Management Council currently is considering related proposals from the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's subcommittee on financial aid. One, Proposal No. 2002-83-B, simply would permit student-athletes to receive financial aid up to the actual cost of attendance, without regard to whether the aid is athletically related. The other, Proposal No. 2002-83-A, also would permit financial aid up to the actual cost of attendance but would limit athletically related aid to the full grant-in-aid (tuition, room, board and books) amount, while permitting the difference between the grant-in-aid and cost of attendance to come from non-athletics or Pell Grant sources. If approved, the legislation would be effective in August 2004.

Permit institutions to offer multiyear athletics scholarships.

There currently are no NCAA proposals to revise legislation permitting annually renewed grants-in-aid.

Remove limits on health-care coverage for student-athletes.

The Division I Management Council soon will consider a proposal from the NCAA Risk Management and Insurance Task Force. Proposal No. 2003-49 would permit institutions to pay student-athletes' medical expenses, including those unrelated to athletics, provided the expenses are necessary for the student-athlete to return to competition. Similar proposed legislation was rejected in Divisions II and III, but the proposal is expected to receive strong consideration in Division I.

Permit student-athletes to obtain licensed representation (agents) in making career choices.

There currently is no pending legislation that would permit student-athletes to retain an agent, but various other means are available for obtaining information about opportunities in professional sports.

Permit student-athletes to transfer to another institution without loss of eligibility if the head coach leaves an institution.

The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee has proposed extending the one-time transfer exception to football, basketball and ice hockey, thus offering student-athletes in those sports the same opportunity available to student-athletes in other sports. However, there currently are no proposals to allow a prospective student-athlete who signs a National Letter of Intent to transfer without penalty if a coach leaves the institution before the student-athlete enrolls.

Another provision of the proposed California legislation would prohibit enforcing such penalties as a game forfeit or denial of participation in a postseason tournament for student-athletes at institutions where NCAA sanctions are imposed.

While there are no related proposals currently under consideration within the Association, the Division I Committee on Infractions routinely considers the impact of a penalty on uninvolved student-athletes and coaches when determining penalties to be assessed in an infractions case.

Opponents growing in number

The Higher Education Committee's July hearing featured testimony by Murray, CAC representatives, and representatives of the NCAA, the Pac-10, UCLA and Stanford University.

Several other interested groups also have stated their opposition to the proposal, including the West Coast Conference and the University of California and California State University systems, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, the California Commission on the Status of Women, the California National Organization for Women, and the California Community Colleges Commission on Athletics and Community College League of California Commission on Athletics, as well as individual representatives of several NCAA member institutions in the state.

The Assembly's Higher Education Committee agreed, with Murray's consent, to postpone consideration of the legislation to the 2004 legislative session and encouraged affected groups, including the NCAA and its member institutions in the state, to engage in discussions about aspects of the proposal.

In response, the Pac-10 is inviting representatives from all universities, colleges and community colleges in California to the October 28 meeting, and also has invited Murray and members of the Higher Education Committee, including Chair Carol Liu. Conference officials also hope that current student-athletes will be able to participate.

"The objectives are to inform the institutional representatives of the goals of the bill's sponsors, and to advise the legislators in attendance of the problems and potential consequences the institutional officials believe the bill would cause the colleges and universities if passed," Hansen said.

"Discussion also will focus on ongoing NCAA legislative steps to address a number of the issues raised in SB 193, and institutional representatives plan to demonstrate to the legislators a willingness to seek change where success is possible politically, while showing that in other areas revisions have been proposed over the years without success," he said.

Offering an example, Hansen noted that it is difficult for the Association to address the problem of penalizing current student-athletes for infractions they are not involved in. The problem is both practical, because due-process provisions result in an unavoidable delay in applying penalties, and political, because the NCAA membership has expressed its will that ineligibility for postseason championships is a necessary penalty in addressing rules violations by institutions that seek to gain a competitive advantage.

"Each of the areas addressed in SB 193 has been the subject of in-depth NCAA review and debate," Hansen said.

Bill has over-reaching impact

California-based institutions and other concerned groups already have expressed concerns regarding the proposal, not only through testimony before the Higher Education Committee and communication with legislators in their home districts, but through such avenues as communication with the Higher Education Committee's staff.

A member of the staff, Keith Nitta, prepared an analysis of the bill for committee members, using information provided by California institutions, among other sources.

"This bill appears to be focused on problems and inequities for student-athletes on high-profile athletics teams (football, basketball) at Division I-A schools, such as UCLA, but it applies to all student-athletes at all schools regulated by the NCAA or NAIA," the analysis stated. "In trying to solve problems for a specific group of student-athletes, the bill impacts a much larger group of student-athletes.

"Under the terms of the bill, all NCAA members, even those in Division III that do not award athletics scholarships, could not participate in the NCAA since the NCAA dictates the terms, value and conditions of student-athlete scholarships."

The analysis notes that only seven of California's 47 NCAA member institutions are Division I-A members. The analysis also noted that 26 NAIA member institutions would be affected, based on that organization's financial aid limits.

The staff analysis also noted that women's sports at California institutions "would be particularly harmed" by the loss of Association resources, including collection and reporting of data regarding gender equity and opportunities to participate in NCAA championships.

It also noted adoption of the bill would deny all student-athletes at NCAA and NAIA institutions the opportunity for championships and football bowl-game participation, NCAA postgraduate scholarships, and other Association financial and academic award programs.

October session to focus on resolving issues

An October 28 meeting to discuss ramifications of California Senate Bill 193 is being sponsored by an NCAA member conference, but it will involve non-NCAA member institutions as well.

"A number of speakers will discuss the pros and cons of the bill, then members of the NCAA's three divisions, as well as members of the NAIA, will meet separately to determine which elements of SB 193 they might try to resolve by advocating national rule changes," said Tom Hansen, commissioner of the Pacific-10 Conference, which will host the meeting at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

That effort is in response to Califor nia State Assembly Committee on Higher Education Chair Carol Liu's request that affected institutions engage in discussion of aspects of the proposal.

Liu has been invited to meet with the institutions during the meeting, along with Sen. Kevin Murray, author of the bill. Others invited to participate as speakers are NCAA President Myles Brand, Stanford Athletics Director Ted Leland, and Betsy Stephenson, associate director of athletics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The meeting also will feature separate sessions for institutions in each of the NCAA membership divisions and the NAIA. Leading sessions for NCAA members will be Leland in Division I, California Collegiate Athletic Association Commissioner Bob Heigert in Division II, and California Institute of Technology Athletics Director Tim Downes in Division III.

"If consensus positions on issues are reached, plans will be made for addressing them through proposal of NCAA or NAIA legislation," Hansen said.