Division I members attending the 2006 Convention will do at least two things they haven’t done before. For starters, they’ll participate in the first override vote since the division went to a representative governance structure in 1997. After that, members of the Division I Management Council will handle 140 other proposals in a new way that will test the efficiency of that structure.

The former has some historical significance on the governance structure, while the latter has more to do with its future.

The override vote on Proposal No. 04-21 carries a little bit of everything. There’s plenty of intrigue, since most people are having trouble predicting which way the votes will fall. Some might assume that the vote would divide along subdivisional lines since the call for the override came exclusively from I-AA and I-AAA institutions, but there’s no guarantee that will occur. If it does, it is worth noting that as of December 16, 345 of the 573 individuals from Division I members registered to attend the Convention represent I-AA and I-AAA institutions (though not all of them are voting delegates).

There’s also plenty of supporting rationales for both sides. Supporters of the measure to increase maximum grant-in-aid levels in four women’s sports see it as a boon for women’s participation opportunities — a victory for Title IX, as it were — and as a way for schools to accommodate increased grass-roots participation in the four sports — soccer, volleyball, gymnastics and track. The proposal was initiated based on research since 1996 that reflected increased participation, and on studies that show a causal relationship between increased scholarship availability and participation (the “if you sponsor it, they will come” approach).

But detractors point openly to the cost ramifications of the proposal — institutions with fewer resources will be hard-pressed to keep up. But they also have more subtle reservations that have to do with competitive equity. The thinking is that the larger schools will “stockpile” athletes who merely ride those teams’ benches but who could have been impact players at the smaller schools. Some find that theory flawed, though, because student-athletes who want the playing time will go where they can get it. But others believe those prospects won’t be able to pass up the lure of the higher-profile institutions, even if they go there as subs instead of starters.

Even the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is struggling with Proposal No. 04-21. At its latest meeting, members said they were still polling their peers. Chair Ian Gray said the group sees both sides and probably won’t be able to identify a stance until the SAAC’s pre-Convention meeting. “And we’ll certainly speak to it from the Convention floor,” Gray said.

But while the merits of Proposal No. 04-21 stir debate, the override vote itself is just as significant — for two reasons. First is the fact that the override opportunity exists; second is the fact that it took eight years for the opportunity to be taken.

When the 1996 and 1997 Conventions approved restructuring, which federated governance for the three divisions and in Division I gave the I-As a voting majority they hadn’t had in the old structure, provisions were made to ensure that the I-AA/I-AAA minority had the check-and-balance opportunity to call for an override if legislation was passed that they found unacceptable.

In 1996, there was some fear that overrides would be common — that Division I-A with its new voting majority would run legislatively roughshod over its subdivision counterparts. That didn’t materialize.

On the contrary, the fact that a segment of the structure can draw a line does more to prove that the decade-old system works as congenially as it was intended. Jeff Orleans, executive director of the Ivy Group, believes that in itself is as important as the proposal on which the override vote is being taken.

“Perhaps the issue itself is less important than our demonstrating that we’re able to show up and take a stand — and then all of us showing each other that whatever happens, we’ll go forward. No one is treating this like a civil war or some terrible rift,” he said. “It’s an issue that divides people sufficiently so that we’re going to have to go to the Convention to settle it. And there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Orleans pointed out that if a proposal as controversial as No. 04-21 had cropped up in the first year or two after restructuring, people might have been hesitant to use the override provision.

“But now,” he said, “no one is asking to change the governance structure just because the Board took the action it did on 04-21.”

Retired Syracuse University Chancellor Kenneth “Buzz” Shaw also believes in the override provision. He chaired the committee in 1996 responsible for overseeing the restructuring effort, and that group reached several compromises congenially enough that the new governance did more to unify rather than divide Division I’s diverse constituency.

While prompting an override isn’t necessarily easy in the new system (it takes 30 schools to call for the Board’s reconsideration and 100 to actually suspend the legislation), it is nonetheless possible. In the case of Proposal No. 04-21, 116 institutions balked at the Board’s approval of the legislation in April 2004. The Board subsequently did not change its position in August upon reconsideration, which prompted the override vote.

“So long as it doesn’t happen all the time, the override provision is one of the ways that the membership can stay engaged and ensure that the people who are in the positions of authority are listening to them,” Shaw said. “So I would say that the fact we haven’t had any until now is good news — and the fact that we have a strong one now is a sense that the system is working, too. People are realizing they can have an impact.”

The level of that impact will become apparent when the override vote actually takes place during the Division I Legislative Review Forum on Saturday, January 7. At least a five-eighths majority vote of individual active members present (including conference members in the governance structure) and voting shall be required to override the legislation. It is a one-institution/one-vote format and will be taken by roll call.

The membership will vote separately on the four sports addressed in the proposal.

Any part of the proposal that is successfully overridden will be effective immediately. Those parts of the proposal, if any, that are retained carry an effective date of August 1, 2006, though the governance structure is prepared to consider delaying the effective date if warranted.

Initial review of legislation

The second brand-new aspect of the 2006 Convention for Division I members is the way the Management Council reviews legislation. What won’t change is that the January Council meeting still will be when members give initial consideration to legislative proposals in the cycle. What will change, however, is that many of those proposals could be approved upon the initial vote rather than having to move through a comment period and subsequent vote in April.

The process proposed by the Council’s governance subcommittee and approved by the Board in October allows the Council to funnel the less controversial measures directly to the Board for adoption, thus clearing out the cycle and allowing time in April to focus on the more thought-provoking proposals on which membership comment is necessary.

The process provides the Council with the following menu:

n Full approval. Proposals approved by at least a two-thirds majority at the Council’s January 8 meeting shall be forwarded directly to the Board for consideration and possible adoption at the Board’s January 9 meeting.

n Initial approval. Proposals approved by a majority vote — but less than a two-thirds majority vote — shall be forwarded to the membership for review and comment. In such cases, the proposal will be forwarded as having earned Council support. In the previous process, the Council frequently sent proposals to generate comment without taking a position. That practice often confused the membership, which wanted more direction from the policy-making body.

n Failure to initially approve. Proposals that fail to receive initial approval by a majority vote are subject to a two-prong follow-up. The Council may move to forward such a proposal to the membership to solicit review and comment without taking a formal position of support or opposition. In that case, even though the Council will not be stating a position, the membership will know that the proposal failed to receive majority support. If the motion to distribute fails to receive a majority vote, though, or if no such motion is made, the proposal shall be considered defeated.

Management Council Chair Ron Wellman, athletics director at Wake Forest University, said he is eager for the new process to begin. The governance subcommittee developed the system after more than a year of evaluating the legislative process, which went from two six-month cycles to an annual cycle in 2003.

“The rationale for the change was that by allowing proposals that receive initial approval by a two-thirds majority to move directly to the Board for possible adoption, the Division I legislative agenda will be winnowed,” Wellman said. “In turn, that will allow both the Council and the membership to focus attention on those proposals that require more examination and discussion in April.”

The Council’s legislative review subcommittee has reviewed all the proposals in the Division I Official Notice and is recommending that 48 be approved and forwarded to the Board and that an additional 39 be defeated. If that holds true to form, it means that 87 — more than half — of the 140 proposals under initial review could be cleared from the cycle.

Wellman also said the new process gives the membership a way to distinguish between proposals truly receiving initial support by the Council and those being sent out for additional comment. “As a result,” Wellman said, “We hope there will be less confusion within the membership regarding the significance of actions taken at the January Council meeting.”

For a complete list of the proposals in the Division I Official Notice, see www.ncaa.org.