If the desired outcome of the Division I Management Council’s new process to initially consider legislation in January was to streamline the legislative cycle and help the membership understand the Council’s position on proposals, then mission accomplished.

The Council at its January 8 meeting in Indianapolis managed to cull about three-fourths of the legislative proposals from this year’s cycle either by sending them straight to the Board of Directors for adoption or by defeating them.

The former was a new option available to Council members, and they took full advantage of the opportunity. Previously, all proposals that passed in January — even those by a wide margin — went out for membership comment before coming back to the Council again in April. That created what some people believed was an inefficient double consideration of proposals that clearly were not controversial, and it resulted in the membership taking time away from focusing on the more complex legislative issues in Division I.

This time, though, proposals passing with at least a two-thirds majority were forwarded straight to the Board. A total of 68 proposals met that standard, and the presidents adopted 59 of them at their January 9 meeting.

Proponents of the new system say it not only streamlines the legislative cycle, but it also gives the membership and the governance structure time to focus on the more complex proposals that don’t have a clear majority from the start.

That worked, since only 39 proposals remain in the comment phase (30 from the Council and nine from the Board). Among the ones the Council sent there are two controversial measures regarding permissible medical expenses. One, Proposal No. 05-101, specifies that they be limited to athletically related injuries or illnesses. The other, Proposal No. 05-102, allows schools to buy medical insurance policies that cover expenses for any student-athlete injury or illness.

The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee strongly opposes the former and favors the latter. SAAC members believe Proposal No. 05-101 is a step back from current legislation they fought hard to adopt in 2004. Proponents of 101, however, argue that the current permissive legislation compromises competitive equity and that dollars from the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund could be used toward medical expenses.

Given the competitive-equity concerns, most proponents of 101 don’t support 102, since it is expansive legislation.

The Management Council sent 101 for comment with support and 102 for comment without taking a position.

Another proposal in the comment period that figures to generate debate is No. 05-111, which would eliminate the one-time transfer exception in baseball. Proponents think the measure addresses the high transfer rates and low academic performance in the sport. The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Baseball Issues Committee have opposed the idea, though, citing the lack of data regarding the proposal’s intended academic impact.

Also out for comment is Proposal No. 03-24 (as amended by No. 03-24-1), which requires schools to award financial aid on an annual basis rather than term by term. The Division I SAAC strongly supports the idea, as does the Committee on Academic Performance.

The Management Council further culled the legislative cycle by defeating 37 other proposals. Among them were several that sought to increase either the number of coaches or off-campus recruiters in nonrevenue sports, and another specifying dates by which an institution must notify student-athletes about financial aid renewal.

Added to the legislative attrition was another try at five seasons of eligibility for Divisions I-A and I-AA football student-athletes, a proposal that this year’s sponsor, the Ohio Valley Conference, withdrew before the Council meeting. The Atlantic Coast Conference withdrew a similar measure last year after receiving little support.

All in all, more than 100 proposals were removed either by being approved, defeated, withdrawn or rendered moot. That, say Council members, is meaningful progress.

The only confusion members experienced with the process was how to vote initially if the goal only was to send the proposal out for comment, since a yes vote in that case risked immediate adoption by the Board. However, members are afforded the chance to move a proposal to the comment period even it was defeated on the first vote.

The other challenge is how to give the Board enough guidance to deal logically with the many proposals that gain the two-thirds majority. Board members subsequently advised that the Council separate those measures into those that were overwhelmingly approved or are of a technical nature and those for which the approval was not as clear-cut. That way the Board can be given a clear consent package and still allow time to discuss the remaining proposals in more detail if necessary.

For all Division I legislative actions taken by the Council and Board of Directors, see the Legislative Services Database at www.ncaa.org.