The Division II Membership Committee is helping to provide a “pathway back to Division II” for institutions that sponsor a single sport at the Division I level or are in the process of reclassifying their entire athletics program to Division I and decide they wish to return.

The committee’s discussion at its February 16-18 meeting in San Francisco was certainly relevant, given the current national economic climate that is causing institutions to evaluate their financial commitment to athletics. With attrition to Division I being among the primary concerns for Division II membership, the committee wants to take steps to accommodate institutions for which perhaps circumstances or strategies have changed.

In that vein, the Membership Committee discussed provisions for schools that had been Division II members but are currently in the reclassifying process to Division I. While committee members haven’t settled on all of the parameters yet, the idea would be for schools in these situations that express a desire to return to Division II to not have to go through the traditional candidacy/provisional period required for institutions new to the division.

The committee would require such institutions to first submit a written plan and then demonstrate how they will meet Division II legislative, scheduling, sport-sponsorship and financial aid requirements, among others. The committee also might stage a “re-orientation” visit to review recent Division II initiatives such as community engagement, game environment and strategic planning.

“After that, the timeline for these institutions’ return to active status and being eligible for championship participation in Division II may have to be determined on a case-by-case basis,” said Membership Committee Chair Glenn Stokes, the faculty athletics representative at Columbus State. “In many cases, that process might be delayed simply because the institution has contracted a Division I schedule in various sports a year or two out. But the goal is to work with these schools that have discovered that their missions really align more with the Division II platform and get them back to active Division II status in a manner that benefits the institutions and does not compromise the membership process.”

Similarly, the Membership Committee also discussed waiver provisions for institutions that sponsor a single sport at the Division I level but wish to change. Division II recently approved noncontroversial legislation to provide such a waiver as long as the institution demonstrates compliance with Division II financial aid, scheduling, initial-eligibility and amateurism requirements. Institutions meeting those standards would apply for the waiver and potentially be able to sponsor the sport in question at the Division II level as early as the following year.

In other highlights at the Membership Committee’s February meeting, members met with representatives from Simon Fraser University who have expressed interest in applying for Division II membership by the June 1 deadline. If that application is completed, Simon Fraser may become the first institution from Canada to matriculate into the Division II membership pipeline.

“While our committee already has had an open line of communication with Simon Fraser, this particular session was instructive in that it allowed both the institution and our group to talk about academic policies that are unique to both sides, such as requirements for a degree, what constitutes full-time enrollment and that sort of thing,” Stokes said. “In the case of Simon Fraser, I think they are realizing that they are a lot more alike than different when it comes to determining whether they are appropriately positioned for Division II membership.”

In other action, the Membership Committee:

•         Began developing policies and procedures related to Proposal No. 2009-6, which would give the Membership Committee the authority to audit institutions when they fail to meet at least two membership requirements during a 10-year period. The committee determined that a “paper audit” would occur initially, followed by an on-campus visit if necessary.

•         Reviewed a pilot program for online completion of the Institutional Self-Study Guide. Eighteen Division II schools have agreed to participate in the pilot program and complete an online version of the ISSG by June 1, 2010, at which time the Membership Committee will evaluate whether the Web-based technology will become the standard by which Division II members complete the ISSG.

•         Voted to eliminate the requirement that conference commissioners sign an institution’s ISSG before it is submitted to the national office. The Membership Committee emphasized, however, that conferences are free to require their own review if desired – it’s just that the conference commissioner signature is no longer part of the submission process.