T he NCAA Manual makes it clear that college and university presidents and chancellors have the final say when it comes to intercollegiate athletics issues. But the way a few boards of trustees have behaved recently has some CEOs wondering who's in charge.

Though boards have ultimate responsibility for policy, both in athletics and in other areas of the university, CEOs are thought to be the decision-makers on all operational issues. They oversee management, including the hiring and firing of key personnel in athletics and elsewhere within the institution. But sometimes board members intrude into CEO management.

When the subject came up during a recent Division I governance meeting, one president said in fact that he knew of trustees who say they are in charge when it comes to key athletics decisions. Another president noted many CEOs attribute the loss of their jobs to conflicts with boards over athletics more than any other area. A third cited cases of recent detrimental trustee involvement in athletics.

NCAA President Myles Brand summed it up when he said, "Very rarely does a trustee lose his or her job over athletics, but CEOs sometimes do."

To be sure, egregious behavior from trustees or regents in athletics matters is rare and typically confined to Division I institutions, but a few recent high-profile cases have refueled discussion of who's in charge. Though the consensus seems to be that presidents are -- and that instances when they're not simply are anomalies -- there's nevertheless an undercurrent of concern that a few boards overstep their boundaries.

Some recent cases support the anxiety. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the regional accrediting agency for universities in the Southeastern part of the country, cited two NCAA institutions recently for trustee interference with day-to-day operations that should be under the purview of the president. One of the institutions' boards since dissolved its athletics committee in the hopes of persuading the accrediting agency to remove the probationary status it had imposed.

In another case, a prominent board member at a Division I school that had changed its longtime nickname because of diversity concerns offered publicly to donate $2 million to the school if it reverted to the original nickname. The school's president declined the offer.

And in at least one recent major infractions case, behavior from a trustee contributed to significant violations and caused great harm to the university's athletics program.

Tom Ingram, president of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) acknowledges such instances of board intrusion or abuse of power, but he said the flip side is even more frequent -- that overall, boards actually have become "mostly benign on athletics matters." To Ingram, neither is acceptable.

That's why the AGB board of directors in March issued a "Statement on Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics," a 10-page benchmark of principles and guidelines for trustee involvement in athletics. The document spells out a shared responsibility for correcting instances in which athletics programs detract from the university's academic mission. "If current reform efforts are going to succeed," the document reads, "governing board members will need to lend consistent and public support to their chief executives and academic leaders who are at the forefront of such discussions."

It might seem odd that the AGB would be calling for boards to become more engaged when the concern is about intrusive behavior, but Ingram said the clarion call is not simply for increased involvement, but for calculated involvement that does not cross a brightly drawn line. The document serves two purposes, Ingram said. One is a stated responsibility for boards to make plain their expectations for CEOs to ensure that their institutions conduct clean athletics programs. A second theme that Ingram said will resonate clearly is for boards to keep their own affairs in order.

"We can't allow avid supporters of athletics on the board to have their agendas fulfilled by inappropriate or unilateral behavior," he said. "They have to keep their colleagues in check, lest a few board members with a fetish for collegiate sports at their institutions run amok."

Ingram wants board members to be part of solutions, not problems. Those members who are inclined to be overly involved shouldn't, and the "benign" boards should be more appropriately active.

"Our statement is not a call for micro-management by trustees," Ingram said. "It is a call for members to support their CEOs and to let them know they have the board's mandate to make sure their programs are being run with the highest ethical and moral standards -- and that they will be there for them should the fur fly."

Keeping the house in order

But the occasional board member who causes the fur to fly is what raises the current CEO concern. Some presidents feel caught in a Catch-22 when board members want to push an agenda since boards have the authority to terminate CEO employment. "There are board members who run for these jobs specifically for their interest in running athletics," one president noted recently. "Boards shouldn't be dabbling in athletics operations, but there are some members who believe they call all the shots."

Several presidents say those situations could be averted if clear boundaries are established immediately to demarcate authority. University of Tulsa President Bob Lawless, who is retiring this summer after 15 years as a college president (see page 1), said athletics matters simply are not decisions for boards to make, and it's the CEO's responsibility to say so.

"I've always felt confident enough that if I got fired I could get another job; therefore, I've never felt I had to do something I didn't think was appropriate just because that might have been what the board wanted," Lawless said. "My boards had the authority in all cases to terminate me immediately, but they didn't have the option of terminating anyone else."

Lawless added, though, that boards with a history of having their way might find a different approach hard to accept. "While the NCAA implemented CEO control many years ago," he said, "I don't know that it necessarily changed the behavior of those boards that were accustomed long before to doing what they considered to be their responsibility."

But the responsibility, said University of Kansas Chancellor Robert Hemenway, is outlined clearly in the NCAA Constitution, which says the institution's chief executive officer is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program.

"The NCAA Manual makes it crystal clear that it is the CEO who is responsible for institutional integrity and is responsible for the athletics program," said Hemenway, who chairs the Division I Board of Directors. "That doesn't mean the board can't offer advice now and then, but it does mean that boards have to be sensitive to the obligation that the president or chancellor has to NCAA rules."

Hemenway said the NCAA's mandated hierarchy wasn't created by happenstance, either. Because college sports -- particularly football and basketball -- are so visible and encourage so much passion, too many self-interests would be ingredients for disaster unless the structure provided for a clearly designated authority. And the reason that the president or chancellor is so clearly designated, Hemenway said, is because athletics should not exist independent of the academic interests of the institution.

"We work to ensure athletics are integrated into the educational life of the institution," he said. "Just as the board has to trust the CEO to make a good decision about who chairs the English department, the board also has to trust the CEO about who the athletics director, the football coach and the basketball coach are going to be.

"You'll end up with a nonfunctional university if the governing board wants to usurp the chancellor's or president's power. It's perfectly appropriate for board members to say they want the athletics program to be something to be proud of, and that there is a high graduation rate. But it has to be made clear that the CEO -- by the NCAA rules and conditions of membership -- is the one who has to take responsibility."

Setting ground rules

Alcorn State University president Clinton Bristow Jr. advocates a three-prong approach to setting boundaries. First, Bristow said, the two parties must discuss and reaffirm the scope of authority. Second, that scope of authority should be stated in the operating bylaws or in board policy so that when the CEO makes decisions on contentious matters, there is a provision that will frame the discussion so the issue of who's in charge can't be left open to interpretation.

"Three," Bristow said, "is to regularly brief the board about athletics' proper place in the university mission so you don't let the board think that athletics -- rather than academics -- drives the university."

Bristow, a member of the Division I Board of Directors, said he constantly shifts his university's image in front of his board toward academics, with athletics in a supporting role. "I always start out my briefings with academic successes, such as graduation rates and matriculation to graduate schools, rather than athletics successes, to set the stage in their minds where our priorities are," he said.

Bristow also said CEOs need to brief alumni in the same manner, especially since boards are prone to pressure from alumni who might have an overly ambitious thirst for winning on the courts and fields instead of in the classroom.

"You want to let your alumni know on a regular basis what the priorities are," he said. "You don't want to wait and then get into a situation where you have a losing season or another athletics-related issue that dominates the public and then all of the sudden you have to back up to academic priorities -- that makes it very difficult."

Margaret Mary Fitzpatrick, president at Division II's St. Thomas Aquinas College, agrees. She said the board's responsibility is to make sure the athletics program is in line with the institutional mission.

"In other words," said Fitzpatrick, a member of the Division II Presidents Council, "the president should be reporting to the board on graduation rates of athletes, since that would be at the heart of any institution's mission.

"If the president is doing his or her job correctly, boards will understand they are not to be day-to-day managers but, rather, to ensure the mission and forward direction of the institution."

"You have to be talking to each other," Hemenway said. "CEOs will tell you that what they fear most is that the board is not bringing issues that are important to them to be discussed. You need a treaty of no surprises. There has to be open, honest, trustworthy discussion about the things that are important to the institution and to the board. If you're not communicating very well, there's no question you'll have problems sooner rather than later."

Division III point of view

From the Division III perspective, the concern may be one of board under-involvement rather than micro-management. Denison University President Dale Knobel said that's to be expected since athletics issues in Divisions II and III usually don't garner as much public scrutiny as those in Division I. Knobel said most Division III boards in fact probably were unaware of the ground-breaking reforms proposed before last year's Convention unless they were informed by their presidents.

"But it's appropriate that Division III boards aren't as on top of these issues," Knobel said, "because in countenance with the Division III principles, athletics is a participatory activity on our campuses and not nearly so fundamental to the identity of the institution as it might be at the Division I level.

"Few of us in Division III live or die as far as reputation is concerned by the short-term or long-term success of any given team."

Knobel advocated keeping athletics matters as part of the institutional fabric when it comes to board briefings.

"On the whole, the lack of board involvement is a good thing for Division III. It's not that athletics aren't on their agenda, but that athletics don't play a bigger role than a whole variety of other things," he said. "What sets Division III apart is that to the extent that boards are involved with athletics, it's through the course of routine business as they would approach any other program on campus, as opposed to something more extraordinary."

Search for balance

The AGB document calls for all boards to re-examine how they exercise their oversight responsibilities. No matter the division affiliation, the AGB is emphasizing the "search for balance" among institutional academic and athletics pursuits.

"Our hope would be that going forward, college and university trustees will be part of the solution," Ingram said. "We need more thoughtful engagement on the issues by college and university trustees across all three divisions."

Ingram added that the approaches and practices that Alcorn State President Bristow advocated are much in line with the statement issued by the AGB's board.

At the same time, Ingram hopes the renewed focus on board behavior will encourage CEOs to take a similar step. Indeed, two recent NCAA infractions cases cited misbehavior from presidents as having led to major violations.

"There's a challenge here not just for boards to get it right, but for presidents and chancellors to get it right, too. Not all presidents have bought in to the need for reform, and not all buy the notion that what is going on in some Division I-A corners is all that wrong," Ingram said. "But boards can and must abide by the NCAA assigning control of intercollegiate athletics to the CEO.

"None of this should be seen as a challenge to the presidents and chancellors. These men and women are in tough positions and they need all the help they can get. What they don't need is an intrusive or micro-managing boards. They need boards that will stand up with them when CEOs make the tough decisions that have to be made."

Hemenway said most presidents will welcome the assistance, as long as the boundaries are clear.

"There was a time 20 or 30 years ago in which presidents were building fire walls between themselves and the athletics program. With the Knight Commission and some of the reforms that have taken place since then, my generation of presidents makes it clear that you don't want fire walls," he said. "You have to be aware of what's going on in the athletics department.

"CEOs have to step up to the responsibility that they're the person in charge, and they're the person the NCAA is going to expect to be in charge."

Topic for debate

The "Statement on Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics" the closes with a question: Should a separate board committee on athletics should be established in order to facilitate appropriate board involvement in athletics issues?

"More important than the ultimate outcome of the debate is the process itself," said AGB President Tom Ingram. "Our intent is that just having the debate is healthy. These issues aren't about structure so much as they are about the people who are part of the decision-making teams. There will be strong differences of opinion on this matter and the AGB's board takes no position on it."

Here's what some presidents have said about the issue:

* "I would consider a separate board committee on athletics to be the start of a slippery slope. If you study closely the programs where the board has intruded into the athletics, you usually find some behavior and action that work against the institution."

-- Robert Hemenway, chancellor, University of Kansas

* "The disadvantage of such a committee is that it could go beyond its charge and get into setting schedules and looking at personnel decisions. It's only human nature to take that next step and try to suggest what should be done. It could very easily move from policy to operations. It also could become a very prominent committee because of the subject matter. It gets the media attention."

-- Clinton Bristow Jr., president, Alcorn State University

* "I'm a little leery about having a standing athletics committee. First of all, if the issue is a major policy issue then the whole board should be involved, not just a committee. But more importantly, it covertly tells the committee that it has a very significant role to play in athletics, and while it won't always lead to intrusion, it raises the risk. The more important question is what are the respective responsibilities -- what are the differences between policy and management? The AGB document is very clear in saying that board members should focus on major policy issues and not intrude into the operational issues, which are the purview of the president and the athletics director."

-- Myles Brand, president, NCAA

AGB poses athletics questions for boards

The board of directors of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges issued a "Statement on Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics" in March. The document suggests several questions, including the following, that boards should consider related to their involvement with athletics. The entire document is available at www.agb.org.

Does our institution orient trustees to their responsibilities concerning intercollegiate athletics?

Does the administrative structure of the institution and the athletics department allow the institution to achieve its mission and goals?

What is the impact of intercollegiate athletics on our campus climate? How does athletics affect admissions, social life, academic values and the composition of the student body?

What degree of independence should the athletics department have? Is it appropriately integrated into the general administrative structure in terms of accountability, budgetary processes and operating procedures?

If our athletics department has an incentive and reward system for coaches or administrators, does it encourage positive outcomes for student-athletes in terms of academics and general welfare? For example, do such contracts include incentives relating to graduation rates or to academic achievement of student-athletes?

Do our coaches and administrators accept their responsibilities to be educators?