As Division II works to strengthen relationships between member institutions and their communities, the early questions pertain more to "who" than "what."

The Division II Community Advisory Group, composed of 18 top Division II administrators and consultant Rich Luker, continued to reflect the membership’s enthusiasm about building support for athletics and other institutional programs by strengthening relationships with communities through a coordinated national effort.

"This program will enhance our identity by building on our institutions’ links with their communities — one of the primary Division II attributes that we discovered through research that we have conducted over the last several months," said Division II Vice President Mike Racy. He said that this linkage will enable Division II schools and conferences to connect with people in a more meaningful way than is possible through the traditional promotional model.

"We’re flipping the coin," Luker said. "We want to benefit the community (rather than asking the community to benefit the athletics program). We want people closest to us to say, ‘I see how your school can become my town square.’"

Sue Willey, a member of the Community Advisory Group and athletics director at the University of Indianapolis, said that creating and implementing the program should not be too daunting since so much of the content should be familiar.

"This is something that many of our schools are already doing well," she said. "What we want to do is take what we’re doing for community on a local level and coordinate it so that it works for Division II on a national basis."

However, questions about "who" must be answered first: Who constitutes the "community" and who is responsible for implementation?

"This group took quite a bit of time on these questions because this program will not succeed if we do not target the right audiences and if we aren’t specific about who’s in charge," said Charles M. Ambrose, Division II Presidents Council chair and president of Pfeiffer University.

The question about audience involved two elements: How each school can identify an appropriate "community," and how schools can avoid no-win competition situations with other college athletics programs.

The group considered the possibility of formally identifying each institution’s target area by mutually agreed-upon boundaries, such as school district lines. However, the committee quickly concluded that each institution should define its "community" as it chooses — whether by voting precincts, school district lines, town or county boundaries, or maybe even by diocese for some private schools. What is most important is for each school to identify a "community" large enough to matter and small enough to be manageable.

However, competition with other non-Division I entities should not be a concern.

"In reality, we don’t have many cases where Division II programs compete with other Division II programs," said Division II Vice President Mike Racy. "There’s not even that much competition against Division III, so we really didn’t have a need to specify ‘territory’ school by school."

Racy also added that discussions about "territory" apply only to relationship-building and community promotion. They have nothing to do with recruiting or any other administrative function.

The other "who" question — the one about who should be in charge — was not as easily resolved.

The group generally agreed that athletics directors are the obvious choice to implement a community-based program, but it just as quickly concluded that Division II athletics directors could resist if they perceived that implementation would add to their already demanding workload. Presidents almost certainly would support a well-structured program to strengthen the institution’s relationship with the community, but they would delegate the responsibility for implementation. Departments with an interest in the program could include development/advancement, student services, public relations, the faculty in general and perhaps even the business school.

Sunshine State Conference Commissioner Mike Marcil said the trick may lie with convincing the membership that this program actually could mean less work than is currently being expended. The sharing of best practices backed by a division-wide goal to strengthen communities would heighten efficiency for any campus that is already making community-based efforts.

The Community Advisory Group will meet again in July in conjunction with the Management Council meeting.