An advisory group of presidents from all 20 Division I-AA and I-AAA conferences met for the first time March 23 in Indianapolis to discuss their place in the governance structure. Tabbed officially as the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group, the body was established by the Division I Board of Directors on a trial basis to broaden conference representation at the CEO level without legislatively changing the composition of the Board.

The Board of Directors, the top policy-making group in the Division I governance structure, currently comprises 18 members representing all 11 Division I-A conferences but includes only seven of the Division I-AA and I-AAA leagues at a given time. Division I-AA and I-AAA conference CEOs serve Board terms on a rotating basis, but members of those leagues have been interested in increasing their involvement with the Board. They are particularly concerned about instances when one or two representatives from one of the subdivisions is unable to attend a Board meeting, which leaves minimal representation from those groups during important Board discussions. Division I-AA and I-AAA members have proposed sending alternates to the Board meetings when absences are known in advance, but the Board has not supported the idea of Board substitutes.

The Board also has consistently indicated it is comfortable with its current size and composition. Though the Division I Management Council has expanded in recent years to accommodate all Division I leagues, it also created a complicated voting structure in order to preserve voting margins among subdivisions. The Board has opposed suggestions of a similar approach.

However, the Board appointed a subcommittee last year to study ways to enhance
I-AA/I-AAA involvement, and that group recommended that a committee composed of Division I-AA and I-AAA presidents be established to provide counsel to the seven I-AA and I-AAA Board representatives, who also would be part of the advisory group.

The Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group is chaired by University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, who currently serves on the Board. The group used its March 23 session to establish future meeting logistics and guidelines for reporting to the Board. Members preliminarily agreed to convene in-person two times per year, immediately before the October and April Board meetings, and to conduct a conference call before the Board's August meeting, noting the January meeting would be held in conjunction with attendance at the NCAA Convention.

Division I-AA and I-AAA conference commissioners joined the presidents at the initial meeting, and CEOs and commissioners alike noted the importance of keeping the lines of communication open. In that vein, presidents suggested inviting the commissioners to at least one in-person meeting per year. However, there was consensus that the advisory group should be CEO-driven.

The advisory group also discussed its purpose moving forward, and the areas of impact it might have at the Board level. The group determined four areas in which it might have the greatest effect: (1) engaging more presidents in Division I policy decisions, (2) increasing communication among Division I-AA and I-AAA CEOs and conferences, (3) educating more constituencies about broad-based Division I issues, and (4) influencing decisions at the Board of Directors level.

Advisory group members emphasized that not only do they want to have input on the business of Division I, such as developing positions on legislative proposals and policy issues, they believe increased input on big-picture issues that affect all of Division I would be beneficial. Some members likened their role to that of the former Board Task Force, which was established three years ago to study reform issues. Members believe the advisory group can serve in a similar capacity for Division
I-AA/I-AAA interests. One president in fact said the advisory group "is a good opportunity to provide input on important issues without challenging the delicate governance and voting structure that exists."

Advisory group members also spent time discussing key issues that will be facing the Board at its April 29 meeting. That session will be an important one for the Board, since it represents the culmination of the annual legislative cycle and will include decisions on the highly anticipated disincentives structure that anchors the academic-reform package. Though the advisory group did not formalize positions on legislative proposals (members plan to do that during an April conference call), it did discuss some of the more significant matters at hand, including a proposal that would allow student-athletes to obtain financial aid up to the cost of attendance, and the concept of permitting schools to provide aid to academically "at-risk" prospects during the summer term before initial enrollment. Though members agreed that both issues could enhance student-athlete welfare, they were concerned about how Division I-AA and I-AAA institutions would be able to fund them.