Click here for part two of the series.

Metropolitan State President Stephen Jordan begins his second term as chair of the Division II Presidents Council this year. With another important NCAA Convention on the horizon and a number of key Division II initiatives underway for 2009, The NCAA News asked President Jordan to comment on the successes of 2008 for the division and identify primary goals for the coming year.

Part 1 of the Q&A is a look back at how Division II successfully positioned itself to where it is today. Part 2 tomorrow looks ahead at the strategic initiatives for 2009.

Q  The Division II identity has come a long way in the three-plus years since the 2005 presidents and chancellors summit that identified the need for the Division II strategic-positioning platform. What one or two things in the past year has most advanced the division along those lines?

Jordan: Two things, both under the heading of sustainability. One is that we have been able to continue what we started at that critical session in 2005, reinforcing the principles we identified and improving the initiatives we agreed to undertake. The Division II National Championships Festival is a good example – we’ve continued to emphasize the importance of that event, to market what it means to Division II and to create that as the model of the experience we want out Division II student-athletes to have.

Another good example is the continuity we have managed to sustain surrounding community engagement as a building block of Division II characteristics. Other examples are our continuity around membership to make Division to a destination, both for prospective members – even now from Canada – and for our existing membership base as well.

That continuity is the first component of our success in recent years, building upon what we have in place and continuing to make it better.

The second component is about the future. The work we have done around the strategic plan has aligned the positioning statement with our specific goals and objectives for the future, and it also has established accountability throughout the Division II organizational structure for monitoring and achieving those goals.

Those elements – continuity and planning in ways that sustain the positioning platform – are the primary successes of the past year.

Q  You have served in a number of leadership roles during your time in higher education. How does the Division II Presidents Council compare with other policy-making bodies on which you’ve served?

Jordan: You’re right, I do serve on a number of groups involving presidents and senior administrators, and I’ve never seen a group of presidents so committed to what they’re doing, who believe so much in how intercollegiate athletics can enhance the mission of their colleges. We have a wide array of views on issues and yet a great way to discuss those issues and find better solutions than perhaps what was originally on the table. I’ve been impressed at the extent to which we have engaged debate that is focused toward reaching a conclusion and a decision, and not just needlessly extending the discussion. I have been impressed with my colleagues’ willingness to engage in the discussion and find solutions that are in the best interests of all our Division II members. And that matters when you look at the diversity of our Division II membership. The division is just about evenly split between public and private institutions, and many are independent – we have a significant component of HBCUs and Hispanic schools – and of course our membership is widely dispersed geographically, yet we seem to find common cause among all of those who represent our membership. It speaks well to the leadership of the presidents.

Q  The NCAA places a premium on presidential involvement in decision-making. How would you characterize the Division II presidential contribution in the last few years?

Jordan: What we have achieved over the past three years is a result of – and an important indicator of – presidential involvement and how presidential leadership can affect significant change both at the campus level and at the organizational level like NCAA Division II.

The presidents in 2005 recognized a problem and dealt with it. They assembled the mechanism to do that (the strategic-positioning platform), they have stayed engaged, and they also have pushed it down into their own institutions and conferences. Without that leadership – pushing the initiatives down to where the action is, so to speak – these changes wouldn’t have happened. It also shows up in the extent to which whenever we have openings on the Council, there are a number of qualified candidates who express interest in wanting to be a part of this journey.

Q  It seems that no one gets more excited about strategic planning than Division II. How does the division keep something that could become mundane elevated as a priority?

Jordan: I think we actually like it, and we have a group of presidents who practice it. They realize that the plan is a statement of intent and the budget is an instrument to achieve the outcomes the plan purports. I like the way we have on parallel paths linked planning with budgeting. This is another place where presidential leadership has been key.

Look at the leadership (West Texas A&M President) Pat O’Brien (member of the Presidents Council and the Division II Budgeting and Planning Committee) provided in strategic planning. He was able to energize the broad-based group charged with proposing a new three-year plan for 2009-12, and it was clear through his leadership that it was essential for there to be accountability in the new plan. Importantly, he reached across governance boundaries and worked with the budget committee to coordinate the effort to rethink the conference grant program so it can achieve the goals of the strategic plan.

That also helps to achieve goals the Conference Commissioners Association has put in place – to help conferences operate more effectively. It’s a great example of presidential leadership with the understanding that a plan without a means (budget) to achieve it is not likely to achieve. For Division II in the long run, it is about our commitment to following that plan, and our ability to ensure that the elements of our organizational structure that have been assigned accountability for monitoring the specific objectives and actually implementing them are really doing it.