NASHVILLE, Tennessee -- The inaugural Division I legislative review session January 10 designed to energize Division I members' participation in the legislative process during the Convention appeared to be a resounding success.

After a slow start, the more than 300 members in attendance engaged in discussion and debate over about one-third of the legislative proposals listed in the Official Notice. Perhaps the slow start could be attributed to the newness of the meeting or that the more controversial legislative proposals were deeper into the agenda, but once members became comfortable with the format, discussion was lively, meaningful and informative.

If the session was a test for how well Division I members had re-engaged both with the legislative process -- now a single annual cycle -- and with the Convention -- now positioned as the launching pad for Management Council consideration and membership comment -- it passed with flying colors. The session was coordinated by the Council's newly appointed Legislative Review Subcommittee, chaired by Council member Kate Hickey, associate athletics director at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

Hickey's group met in December and reviewed every proposal in the Official Notice in order to flag those about which it had concerns or those that might benefit from membership debate. The subcommittee divided proposals into several categories, including (1) those the subcommittee recommended for the Management Council's initial approval and distribution to the membership for comment; (2) those about which the subcommittee had questions or concerns; (3) those the subcommittee believes fit the parameters the Council identified for emergency or noncontroversial legislation; and (4) those that should be tabled based on recommendations from cabinets and subcommittees.

In all, the group identified 30 proposals to bring before the membership. Participants also had the opportunity to address any other proposal they wished. The format called for the subcommittee to introduce the proposal and invite sponsors to speak to the measure. That was followed by the opportunity for clarification or debate.

Student-athlete-welfare proposals seemed to generate the most debate. For example, after several administrators raised concerns of abuse over Proposal No. 03-59, which would permit prospects to earn one core-course credit in the summer after high-school graduation, representatives from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee hailed the measure as an additional opportunity for prospects, particularly minority student-athletes, to prepare for the increased academic standards on the way in the academic-reform package.

Similarly, debate ensued over a proposal (No. 03-74) that would preclude institutions from counting travel days to and from competitions as the required day off for student-athletes. Arizona State University Faculty Athletics Representative Jerry Kingston pointed out that "those of us who travel frequently probably wouldn't describe our travel days as a day off, and we shouldn't expect student-athletes to, either." But SAAC members said they actually were split on the issue. Student-athletes from schools in proximity to the majority of their competitions or that fly to games do not seem to be as concerned about having the travel day be the required day off as student-athletes from schools in isolated areas or schools that bus to competitions. Some student-athletes also say the non-travel day as the day off eats into their practice time.

Other proposals sparking discussion included those regarding expanded medical benefits and increased flexibility in financial aid, two hot buttons in the controversial bill from a California state senator that criticizes the NCAA for not providing enough benefits to student-athletes. The financial aid proposal in particular (No. 02-83-A) generated discussion. One member pointed out that the costs associated with the proposal to allow student-athletes to receive non-athletically related aid over and above the full grant-in-aid up to the cost of attendance would be greater to institutions and programs that do not have a full complement of athletics scholarships to give. But Pacific-10 Conference Commissioner Thomas Hansen urged support of the proposal, especially in light of the external pressure in California. "If we don't take advantage of this proposal, it won't just be a California problem, but a national problem," he said.

Proposals to expand a summer bridge program in basketball to other sports also were addressed. The bridge program in basketball adopted two years ago allows participating schools to provide financial aid to prospects during the summer term before initial full-time enrollment. Preliminary data indicate that participants are more likely to have higher grade-point averages and compile more course credits than nonparticipants after the first academic year. Mike Slive, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, sponsor of Proposal No. 03-15 (expanding the opportunity to all sports), strongly urged support, noting that survey results showed participants think the program makes a significant difference.

Other members, though, were hesitant to support the measure until more data become available from the basketball program, particularly data that show whether the program affects graduation.

A proposal to eliminate foreign tours (No. 03-67) also was debated. Proponents cited cost concerns and additional student-athlete time demands. Arizona State Athletics Director Gene Smith went so far as to say the proposal aligns with the United States' current homeland security concerns. Other members, though, particularly student-athletes, pleaded opposition to the proposal, saying the educational and cultural benefits were significant. "I had never been out of the state of Rhode Island before I went to college," said SAAC Chair Dylan Malagrino. "Please don't support this proposal."

Overall, members of the Legislative Review Subcommittee felt the session accomplished its goal. Hickey called the inaugural meeting a success, noting that members were both willing to be educated about the proposals and willing to debate them.

"The format provided for educational discussion and for debate," she said, "but the outcome was more debate-oriented. In other words, the people who approached the microphones were more engaged in debate than intent on educating participants. The process was a success, especially for the first time. It revealed that the membership is becoming more engaged with the legislative process. But we certainly welcome comments and suggestions about how the format can be improved."

Alison Cone, senior associate director of athletics at California Polytechnic State University and a member of the subcommittee, said the meeting set the bar for the future.

"Now that people have seen it and understand that they are expected to engage in discussion," she said, "that will build participation in future years."