Governing boards play an essential role in the higher education enterprise. For the most part, they have an excellent track record as they fulfill their many responsibilities. But the Achilles heel of some governing boards is their inappropriate involvement in intercollegiate athletics.

Every university has a governing board. Their members are selected by a variety of methods. For public institutions, members usually are appointed by the governor of the state. In some cases, members are elected. Some of these individuals are wonderfully prepared to provide the high-level oversight that complex universities need. Unfortunately, some come with special interests and concerns that may intervene into the president's authority and responsibilities. Managing these interventions so as to improve the university is part of the combat sport of being a university president.

A lot has been written about the problems of intercollegiate athletics. The list of problems includes (among others) gender inequity, academic fraud, inappropriate commercialism, excessive compensation for coaches and a facilities arms race. We know that more than 50 percent of the Division I-A athletics programs are operating at a deficit. The Division I intercollegiate athletics enterprise in fact has been described by more than one observer as headed toward bankruptcy, both financially and ethically.

Presidents are at the vortex of the debate over the proper role of intercollegiate athletics. It is the responsibility of these individuals to see that athletics programs exist in harmony with the overall educational objectives of their universities. It is not a task for the faint-hearted, and the stress is most intense at large, public Division I institutions.

The participants in the debate include students, faculty, campus athletics leadership and alumni. Governing boards also are intensely involved. They do have an appropriate role with athletics, just as they do with every other aspect of their universities. However, it is a problem when that role involves what is, in effect, direct management of the athletics program.

During my eight years as president at Texas A&M, I had the good fortune of having a board of regents that understood its role. The result was eight years of considerable harmony between the athletics and non-athletics activities of the university.

I was lucky. This kind of harmony has not always been the case, not at Texas A&M or at many other Division I universities. One does not have to be an expert on college athletics to know of universities where regents have hired and fired coaches while virtually ignoring the role of the president. Those who follow intercollegiate athletics closely know of other, equally inappropriate examples of board intervention as well.

Why do governing board members interfere with athletics programs? There are several reasons. The main reason is that board members often face enormous pressure from alumni groups to become involved in athletics.

The public attention drawn to major athletics programs is enormous. It is understandable that external groups such as alumni would exert pressure on governing board members, especially when they feel that the university president is not giving appropriate attention to the win-loss ledger.

A few years ago, a major daily in my state reported that the regents of Texas A&M were not trying to manage the athletics programs. The story was true, and I was overjoyed by the public recognition. But some of our alumni were not. Some expressed shock that the regents were not in direct control. This kind of pressure places even the best-intentioned board member in a difficult position.

Governing boards rarely act in public, or as a group, when they attempt to manage athletics programs. If they did, they would be criticized excessively by faculty and others who disagree with the practice. Of course, not all governing board members have a passion for athletics. However, an active minority can easily co-opt the roles of the president and others responsible for athletics.

One can reasonably ask why presidents do not draw the line in the sand and insist upon a hands-off role for governing boards. Some presidents have successfully taken this step. Many have tried, unsuccessfully. Regrettably, many presidents are not positioned to fight the inevitable fight. Most would prefer to devote their energies to improving the long-term academic strength of their universities rather than take on difficult athletics problems, especially if the president's real authority over athletics is poorly defined.

The first report issued by the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics in 1991 challenged presidents to take control of their athletics programs. It also advocated an independent certification of these programs. The certification process, which has been implemented, uses an external peer group to judge the management of the athletics programs against governance, academic, financial and student-welfare criteria. The NCAA calls these criteria "operating principles."

The Knight Commission was right in placing the responsibility with presidents. But the Commission stopped short of proposing steps to ensure that presidents had the authority to meet their responsibilities. In my opinion, there should be an operating principle that judges the role of governing boards.

Two key steps need to be taken to ensure the integrity of the relationship between boards and CEOs. First, the NCAA should craft a statement of professional conduct for governing boards. Such a statement should define the proper oversight role of governing boards relative to athletics programs. And in order to ensure accountability, each governing board should be asked to adopt, on a recurring basis, the statement in a public meeting. In doing so, the standards of conduct contained in the statement would become the policy of the governing board.

Given the creativity of human beings, there will be individuals on governing boards who might vote in public for the proposed standards of conduct and operate privately as if they did not exist. This possibility should be anticipated and factored into the sanction policies of the NCAA and regional accrediting organizations. In addition, the NCAA certification process needs to be structured to determine compliance with the statement.

There are a number of advantages to the suggested approach. For those institutions without a history of problems with their governing board, the statement would simply be asking them to endorse their historical practices. For those governing boards that are in conflict with the statement, the certification process would shed public light on the problem. Such exposure would be the first step in finding a correction.

To be sure, this is not the silver bullet that solves all problems with the intercollegiate athletics enterprise. It is a small, but I believe significant, step toward creating an effective management and accountability model for the large and complex enterprise intercollegiate athletics has become. At the end of the day, intercollegiate athletics programs must support the educational experience of all students, including student-athletes. I believe my proposal would help presidents operate successful athletics programs within the bounds of an academic institution.

Ray M. Bowen is president emeritus at Texas A&M University, College Station.