The group appointed to study Division I's "regulatory culture" met for the first time December 19 in Indianapolis. Officially dubbed the Division I Regulatory Culture Working Group, members took a focus-group approach to launching their review, which is intended to get the Division I membership to assume greater ownership and empowerment in the adoption, interpretation, application and enforcement of NCAA legislation.

The Management Council and NCAA membership services staff collectively embraced the review to help address a growing sense of disenfranchisement within the Division I governance structure. Both groups realized the need for the study at a Management Council Administrative Committee meeting in July during which members aired concerns about the legislative difficulties inherent in the current Division I structure.

There have been increasing concerns, particularly from Division I athletics directors and faculty athletics representatives, that the Division I legislative process is too cumbersome to track effectively and too exclusive for most administrators to feel any ownership. That disconnect, many believe, has strained the regulatory function of the division.

"As the NCAA has expanded, both in the number and variety of institutions and in the scope of complexity of the regulatory scheme, there is a growing sense of disconnection between the governed -- the member institutions -- and those who adopt, interpret and enforce the rules," said Brigham Young University President Merrill J. Bateman, who is a member of the regulatory-culture working group. "There is a fear that in the absence of successful efforts to diminish that gap, the NCAA will shift from a culture in which member institutions comply with the rules because they recognize that compliance is good for the overall system of which they are a key part to one in which they comply only because they fear they will be caught and punished."

Focus groups

Members of the task force divided into three focus groups and worked to reach consensus on a series of questions regarding interpretative issues, enforcement, rules education and training, and certification. Some of the questions the groups tried to answer were:

What are the expectations of the various constituencies (institutional staff members, conference offices, national office staff) related to work that should be done by institutions, conferences and the national office with regard to interpretations, enforcement and certification? How do those expectations differ, and what contributes to them not being met?

Is the perceived difference in "practical knowledge" of those individuals on campuses and in conference offices and the "bookish knowledge" of national office staff real or perceived? If there is a divide, how does it impact the regulatory culture?

Does the frequent adoption of new legislation affect the regulatory culture? Does the Division I Manual contain legislation that is not relevant to the current climate of intercollegiate athletics?

What is the impact of self-reporting violations as it relates to institutional decision-making?

* What are the ramifications of "misinterpreting" a rule? Do different constituencies answer this differently?

Matter of trust

When the focus groups finished their deliberations, the entire committee convened to compare answers. From those discussions, a consensus emerged on at least two items: (1) Yes, the Division I membership feels disenfranchised by the legislative process and is less likely to "own" the application and enforcement of the legislation because members are not actively involved in its development; and (2) despite that fact, any "us vs. them" regulatory-climate mentality should be eliminated for Division I to function effectively.

The latter is especially important, according to working group member Judith Swift. The University of Rhode Island faculty athletics representative said she came away from the first meeting "so impressed by collective concern of all the participants from every region in the welfare of student-athletes, the ethics of intercollegiate sport and the commitment to achieve balance between institutional autonomy and equity between and among schools."

Such collaboration is essential, Swift said, if the working group is to make any effective recommendations. She said if the working group can get past trust issues, then it can serve as an example to the membership.

Most working group members agree that a lack of trust seems to be at the heart of the disconnect. Bateman, who was unable to attend the working group's meeting but e-mailed his comments to members, said the "trust gap" is why the regulatory culture is strained in the first place. For example, he said the interpretations process -- and why so many institutions rely on the national office staff to make the final call even when they already know the answer -- is complicated by trust and/or fear.

"While institutional autonomy in interpretation is essential -- both because of the need for flexibility in applying the rules to individual circumstances and because of the prohibitive cost of providing a national interpretation system -- institutions are sometimes hesitant to exert that autonomy," Bateman said. "They hesitate because (1) they fear they will be unduly penalized if the NCAA ultimately disagrees with their interpretation, and (2) they fear other institutions will take advantage of the autonomy to gain a competitive advantage.

"Both of those fears are heightened if institutions do not feel adequately involved in, and informed about, the process by which the rules are adopted."

Good start

Swift said the working group is a good first step to alleviating those concerns.

"If our meeting is any example," she said, "the NCAA employs a process that is the essence of a participatory democracy. The working group represents disparate experiences in type and size of institution, which is imperative in providing representation of the myriad perceptions and impacts of the regulatory culture. The work of this committee will not ever solve all of the many issues we identified, but the atmosphere alone builds and heightens trust and cooperation. Coupled with the insight and vast experience of the participants, there is every reason to believe that we can continue to make effective progress."

"I thought the group did a good job on coming to a consensus about what the terrain of the regulatory culture currently is," said America East Conference Commissioner and working group member Chris Monasch. "Given the diversity of the group, I think we came up with a picture that the membership would agree is pretty accurate. Now the real challenge ahead is to adjust the areas that we may think are more problematic than others."

Next steps

The group probably will not get to the recommendation stage for a few months. A second meeting has been scheduled for February, with the development of recommendations to begin in the spring. Some preliminary ideas include cross-training opportunities, in which the athletics "practitioners" and legislative "interpreters" might spend some time in each other's shoes, so to speak.

Another more meaty suggestion, which has been voiced for some time now, is for Division I to return to a single legislative cycle and some form of institutional voting. Mid-Atlantic Athletic Conference Commissioner Rich Ensor, a working group member who also chairs the Management Council's governance subcommittee, is familiar with those requests. Ensor's subcommittee has heard from the Division I-A Athletic Directors Association and Division I faculty athletics representatives that changes along those lines are not only desired but necessary.

While Ensor could not predict whether Division I would in fact retool the legislative process, he did say that the first indication of progress for the working group is that members agreed there was something to fix. "It's encouraging that we are beginning to build consensus of the perceptions of the regulatory culture, which is an area that tends to be controversial," he said. "It will be interesting to see what direction this discussion takes."

One certainty in the working group's charge is that members will rely heavily on membership feedback. Once recommendations are developed, they will be presented to the governance structure at committee meetings, and to the membership at conference meetings, NCAA Regional Rules-Compliance Seminars and other sessions.

Focus groups

Group 1

Robert Aronson, faculty athletics representative, University of Washington

Merrill Bateman, president, Brigham Young University

Eugene Doris, director of athletics, Fairfield University

Jennifer Heppel, associate commissioner for compliance and enforcement, Big Ten Conference

Brenda McCoy, assistant to the commissioner/director of championships, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference

John Morris, compliance coordinator, California State University, Sacramento

Jeff Orleans, executive director, Ivy Group

Chris Plonsky, senior associate athletics director/senior woman administrator, University of Texas at Austin

Greg Sankey, associate commissioner, Southeastern Conference

Group 2

Dale Adams, vice-president for student affairs, University of South Alabama

William Bryant, director of compliance and educational support, College of William and Mary

Patrick Hairston, assistant commissioner, Western Athletic Conference

Ruby Higgins, senior woman administrator, Grambling State University

Stephen Horton, associate director of athletics/compliance and recruiting, University of South Florida

Chris Monasch, commissioner, America East Conference

Andrea Myers, director of athletics, Indiana State University

Jon Steinbrecher, commissioner, Mid-Continent Conference

Judith Swift, faculty athletics representative, University of Rhode Island

Group 3

Bob Chernak, senior vice-president, George Washington University

Richard Ensor, commissioner, Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference

Tommy Frederick, faculty athletics representative, Delaware State University

Sandee Hill, senior associate athletics director/senior woman administrator, University of San Francisco

Lynn Holleran, senior associate athletics director for compliance/senior woman administrator, Boston College

Shane Lyons, assistant commissioner, Atlantic Coast Conference

Mike Matthews, assistant commissioner, Pacific-10 Conference

Mary McElroy, senior woman administrator, Georgia Institute of Technology

Alicia Scott, assistant athletics director/compliance and student services, Southeast Missouri State University