The Division I Management Council is recommending changes to the legislative process in response to a Board of Directors request for the Board to have more authority and flexibility in the way legislation is submitted and approved.

During a joint meeting of the Board and Council at the 2005 NCAA Convention, Board members charged the Council's governance subcommittee to examine whether the Board should be granted the authority to initiate legislation into the annual legislative cycle, a provision the Board currently does not have. The Board also asked whether it should be able to restore a proposal that had been defeated by the Management Council to its original status in the cycle. Currently, proposals the Council defeats are not forwarded to the Board.

Both measures were prompted by concerns from the Board that while presidents are charged with setting an agenda in the best interests of Division I, the process for legislation is geared more toward a bottom-up approach than top-down. Board members say there are times when the latter approach is more appropriate, and they want the flexibility to put a presidential agenda into legislation themselves, much like the former NCAA Presidents Commission did in the pre-federation years.

Currently, the only mechanism the Board has for introducing and adopting a legislative concept is its emergency authority, and the rare occasions in which the Board has used that option are confusing to the membership because concepts are adopted without much comment or notice.

Thus, the governance subcommittee recommended to the Council at the April 11 meeting in Indianapolis that the Board be able to initiate legislation as long as such proposals are considered as part of the normal legislative cycle.

"That way," said Council Chair Chris Monasch after his group endorsed the idea, "the process ensures that the concepts receive a thorough vetting by the Division I governance structure.

"It protects the integrity of the governance process while at the same time keeping the Board in  its appropriate lead-
ership role. We also don't anticipate that the Board will initiate a large number of legislative proposals, especially in light of the fact the Division I governance structure has demonstrated an ability to develop sound legislation."

Monasch noted that the reason the Board hasn't been able to initiate legislation is because when Division I went to a representative form of governance in 1997, the Board was by design placed in more of an oversight capacity. The legislative groundwork was assigned to the Management Council, with the assumption that presidents would have neither the time nor interest in taking on such details. However, in addition to the Board assuming its leadership role over the division since federation occurred, presidents also have taken more of an interest in legislation, as evidenced by the academic-reform initiatives that have been prevalent over the last two years.

"While the prohibition was purposefully designed into the Division I governance process, the reasons for it no longer seem as compelling," Monasch said.

To further accommodate the Board, the Council recommended that the deadline for the presidents to initiate proposals be extended to the end of the Board's fall meeting (as opposed to the July submission deadline for the Council, cabinets and conferences).

The later deadline provides the Board the chance to review proposals previously submitted in the legislative cycle and address any obvious legislative omissions regarding important issues on the Division I agenda. It also allows time for Board-initiated proposals to be published in the Division I Official Notice so the membership can provide feedback.

The recommendations will be presented to the Board at its April 28 meeting. Ironically, the Board will have to use its emergency authority to adopt the ideas. Afterward, though, the presidents would have the authority to initiate legislation themselves.

Restoring defeated proposals

Another recommendation from the Council is for the Board to be able to resurrect measures defeated by the Council during the same meeting sequence. The Board currently must use its emergency provision to in effect overturn a Council decision, but the new recommendation gives the Board such authority as long as the action is supported by a two-thirds vote of the Board.

Specifically, the new parameters would mean that a proposal that the Council defeats upon initial consideration in January could be restored by the Board in January to its position in the legislative cycle as long as two-thirds of the presidents present and voting support the action. If the Council defeats a proposal upon second consideration in April, the Board can restore that with a two-thirds majority vote as well, but the proposal could not be formally adopted until the Board's next quarterly meeting in August.

The thinking there is that Board restoration can be immediate in January, since the proposal would be restored only to the comment phase of the cycle. But if a proposal is resurrected in April upon final consideration, the Management Council would prefer that the measure not be adopted until August to at least give the membership some notice that the action was being taken.

An example of an instance in which the Board disagreed with the Council on legislation was last year when the Council defeated a proposal to allow schools to give athletics aid to prospects during their initial summer term to better acclimate them to the college academic environment. Such a provision exists as a pilot program in basketball, but the Council defeated a proposed expansion of the idea to all sports due primarily to cost and competitive-equity concerns. The Board felt strongly enough about the concept, however, that it approved the concept as emergency legislation that becomes effective this summer.

Defeated proposals have not been forwarded to the Board in the past both because of the premise that presidents did not want to be intimately involved with legislative details and because the current composition of the Board does not include representatives from all Division I-AA/I-AAA conferences. By not forwarding defeated proposals to the Board, the thought was that it would ensure that a group of Board members representing a subdivision could not resurrect a defeated proposal.

"Time has shown, though, that concerns about the Board voting as a subdivision block are unfounded," Monasch said. "This new provision should address any concerns that a subdivision could impede the will of the more representative Management Council."

As with the ability to initiate legislation, the concept of resurrecting a proposal could be adopted at the Board's meeting later this month through emergency legislation.

-- Gary T. Brown