An early bow to egalitarianism, the vaunted tradition of American higher education, would likely portend an early close of this commentary. A call to the egalitarian ideal implies that all affiliated with an institution of higher learning share responsibility for the quality, focus and integrity of athletics programs, as might be expected for the universe of curricular and co-curricular offerings of the academy.

It is seldom that ideals are perfectly realized on campus or beyond. And so, specialized roles have evolved over the course of time, created and assumed by committed but fallible mortals to act on behalf of the whole. For colleges and universities, boards, chancellors and presidents hold unique and overarching positions of authority and responsibility for these enterprises held in public trust.

As both fiduciary and organizational stewards, governing boards and chief executives serve as both guardian and guide. To be effective in these capacities, their commitment to the distinct mission and vision of the institution must be unwavering. So, too, must be their individual and collective understanding of how each element of the organization relates to, strengthens, and advances their community's mission and the array of programs that serve to animate it.

The influence and vitality of American higher education lies in its diversity. Under the watchful eye of governing boards and their chief executives and within the context of their charters and relevant public policy, institutions are free to establish and live their unique missions largely as they see fit. Colleges and universities are open to affiliate with whom they want and to set the standards by which they will operate. Institutional associations in higher education are more often than not voluntary and membership-driven.

These affiliations with the likes of regional accreditors, national associations and athletics conferences bind members together through commonly held standards and expectations. These associations do and should serve a very real quality-control function. The rules of membership are customarily explicit after an exhaustive vetting and adoption process. Their effective implementation on campus demands that these standards of affiliation are understood and embraced by a member institution and its governing board as being in harmony with the university's distinguishing academic signature: the institution's mission and focus.

As a college president whose tenure now approaches a decade, I have found that controversies or confusion over "who's in charge" emanate at a fundamental level: a lack of knowledge or understanding of those standards explicit in commonly held articles of affiliation. For NCAA members, all of whom must be regionally accredited as a precondition of Association membership, there is little room for a debate over who's in charge of intercollegiate athletics.

From coast-to-coast, regional accreditors have been unequivocal in defining the roles of governing boards as distinct and separate from the executive functions of chancellors and presidents. The obligations to advance and safeguard the institution inherent in each role is clear. With respect to athletics, as in all facets of college and university operations, boards are responsible for setting and overseeing general institutional policy. While the process of developing such policy usually is undertaken collaboratively with the president or chancellor (who has likely consulted with other invested campus constituencies), the ultimate authority for policy-making and oversight rests with the governing board.

The chief executive officer, appointed and evaluated by the governing board, is charged with the effective administration of established board policy. In so doing, the chancellor or president is expected to set in motion the necessary systems, staffing and procedures required to implement those policies.

In intercollegiate athletics, as in all matters on campus, controversy is likely to erupt and confusion reign when trustees become managers and chief executives assume without authority the overarching policy-making prerogatives vested in the board. Especially troublesome is the scenario, played out far too frequently in the media, in which a chief executive, allied with one or more rogue members of a governing board, acts unilaterally as both policy-maker and implementer in the shadows of their colleagues. Universally, when established and well-accepted lines are breached and authority is blurred or misplaced, even in the name of efficiency or the "public good," the results are less than any party could desire.

One can wander too easily into the esoteric or theoretical when addressing the subject of "who's in charge?" Endeavoring to sidestep this trap, my intent is to address the interdependent nature of board/presidential leadership through practical example. Governing boards and their chief executives are granted, in each decision before them, the opportunity to work as a cohesive unit in establishing institutional policy and carrying these policies forward. This in no way diminishes the importance of keeping policy-making and administrative activities vested in separate institutional agents: the board and chief executive. In this matter, maintaining boundaries might be seen as virtuously as are cooperation and collegiality in decision-making.

To dive into the practical and help divine the meaning and message of the wonkish analysis heretofore, let us take, as example, the fundamental decision demanded of NCAA members to affiliate with a particular division. In this decision, we can confront the issue of "who's in charge" by rephrasing the question as "what are you in charge of?" To wit: What is the role of the board, as guided by the standards of regional accreditors, and what is the appropriate role of chief executives?

Ultimately, in matters such as a decision concerning division affiliation, boards of trustees or their equivalent serve as the final arbiter. As fiduciaries, members of these governing bodies are responsible for determining the right fit between the institution and the core membership of a particular division. Inherent in this role, boards are compelled to ask important questions and to make sound judgments based on the best information available.

In their sphere of responsibility, trustees must inquire: What is the philosophy of a particular NCAA division? How does it relate to the institution's mission? What profile of institutions and conferences are associated with the division? What institutional resources will be required for division affiliation?

Recognizing that institutions that try to be everything to everyone end up by being not much to anyone, the signal question that must be posed and to which the preceding questions leads is: "How will the institution's student-athletes in particular and the student body in general benefit from entering into and continuing in a specific division?" It is here, in the answer to this query, where issues of philosophy, mission and institutional ambition transcend the instinct to see Divisions I, II and III as a sort of hierarchy of influence, prowess and recognition.

The answers to those questions are essential for a board to set policy with respect to intercollegiate athletics. In practice, the chief executive customarily is charged with working with his or her staff in collecting the necessary information from sources internal and external to the organization. Equipped with the data, the board is then able to make an informed decision, an overarching policy decision, as to appropriate division affiliation. It is later incumbent upon the board, usually through the activities of an appropriate standing committee, to regularly monitor the chancellor's or president's implementation of this directive.

In his or her leadership capacity, the chief executive is "in charge" of making adopted policy a reality, setting effective systems and programs in place in continuity with the policy established by the governing board. Once the determination of division membership is established, the chancellor or president is charged with the responsibility to recruit, hire and evaluate staff; oversee the development of institutional systems and programs that conform to the expectations of the chosen division; approve conference affiliations (and participate in conference decision-making); set and bring before the board for adoption an appropriate budget; and continually ensure that intercollegiate athletics programs are administered according to the institution's educational mission and the policy expectation expressed by the governing board.

If there is one thing I have learned in my time as president, effective policy-making and the subsequent process of implementation demand open and continuous communication, not solely between boards and CEOs but between those agents and the academic community. Policies inherently carry with them expectations that must be expressed and reinforced unceasingly in word and deed. Absent effective and regular channels of communication among boards, presidents and the variety of institutional constituencies, programs such as intercollegiate athletics are sure to be less effective and less understood as integral to the institution's academic mission.

As I alluded in my introduction, trustees and presidents are not alone in their responsibility for the well-being of student-athletes. Faculty, staff, peers, alumni, the media and a host of publics are, at various junctures, "in charge" of important facets of a student-athlete's life. Governing boards and chief executives must, to be effective in their stewardship of intercollegiate athletics, as in all matters, be attuned to this reality.

To be effectively "in charge" of intercollegiate athletics, trustees and presidents must know their distinct corporate responsibilities. The reports of specially convened panels such as the Knight Commission are beneficial and instructive in clarifying roles, responsibilities, compelling issues and future directions. But a simple reading of core documents, that is, the standards of accreditors and the NCAA, should be a staple reviewed annually by boards and chief executives. They are more than equal to the task of conveying "who's in charge."

George J. Hagerty is the president of Franklin Pierce College and chair of the Division II Presidents Council. He also chairs the board of directors of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.