The Division III Presidents Council will sponsor seven proposals at the 2010 Convention, led by a proposed amendment to the Division III philosophy statement addressing presidential leadership.

The Council formally approved language it will ask the Division III membership to add to the philosophy statement. That action likely will begin what is expected to be a multiyear effort to engage Division III presidents more strategically and effectively, not only in leading the division’s governance but also in oversight of athletics at the conference and institutional levels.

It is the first legislative action resulting from a series of “white papers” that the Council authored last fall. Those nine white papers seek to generate renewed support for the Division III philosophy statement while providing a roadmap that presidents can use to lead the division in addressing fundamental issues.

“White Paper No. 1 dealt with presidential leadership, which has been an Association-wide focus for a number of years,” said Widener President James Harris, the Council’s vice chair. “The emphasis across all three NCAA divisions has been on presidents being more active and involved at the institutional level, the conference level and, of course, the national level. What we’re trying to do in the white paper is identify ways in which presidents can become more involved at those three levels in Division III.

“What’s interesting is, if you take a look at the Division III philosophy statement, you’ll notice there is one glaring omission, and it’s that presidential leadership is not even mentioned. It never mentions that presidents have the ultimate responsibility for athletics on our campuses.”

To remedy that omission, the Council will ask the membership to add the following tenet to the philosophy statement during the 2010 Convention in Atlanta:

“Division III institutions expect that institutional presidents and chancellors have the ultimate responsibility and final authority for the conduct of the intercollegiate athletics programs at the institutional, conference and national governance levels.”

The Council also previewed other steps it will consider during 2010 to further enhance presidential leadership. Those steps would range from dividing legislative duties assigned to the Presidents and Management Councils (in order to focus presidents’ attention on strategic issues) to asking the membership to preserve core principles by making related legislation more difficult to amend.

Council members acknowledged that the latter recommendation from the white paper to designate specific legislation as “division-dominant” – thus requiring a supermajority vote for amendment – has generated concern in the membership. They addressed those concerns by noting that any effort to initially designate a bylaw as division-dominant would require approval by a supermajority of the membership, as would any subsequent effort to amend that legislation.

The Council also will explore revising the current requirement that it must sponsor all legislation on behalf of the Division III governance structure at the Convention. Council members are interested in creating a “presidential grouping” of proposals for the annual Convention that would include only legislation of philosophical or strategic importance, while permitting the Management Council to sponsor legislation deemed operational in nature.

“We’re trying to engage presidents by designating legislation that we think is key and essential to the philosophy – and on which presidents need a voice – into a presidential grouping,” Harris explained.

“We’re trying to do two things simultaneously: to have our presidents be more involved while at the same time trying to position ourselves as leaders.”

Other 2010 proposals

Meanwhile, under the current requirement that the Presidents Council must sponsor legislative proposals at the Convention, the presidents agreed to sponsor two measures recommended this summer by the Division III Management Council. They are:

• A proposal to end both the fall and spring nontraditional segments five work days before the beginning of an institution’s final exams. The proposal seeks to place the seasons on the same footing. The fall nontraditional segment currently must end by October 30, but the spring segment can be conducted up to the first day of final exams at an institution. Council members are seeking to ensure that student-athletes will have more opportunity to prepare for exams while giving institutions more flexibility in scheduling the primarily practice- and scrimmage-focused seasons.
• A proposal to base calculation of eligibility for a hardship waiver on the maximum number of contests or dates of competition permitted under Bylaw 17 rather than a specific team’s actual number of contests or dates of competition. The proposal seeks a more equitable basis for determining whether a student-athlete who loses part of a season of participation due to injury can regain that lost season by ensuring that the same number of contests are counted toward the calculation in a sport at each Division III institution.

The Council agreed earlier this year to sponsor four other proposals at the Convention. They would:

• Simplify tryout legislation in Bylaw 13.11 to emphasize activities that are prohibited under the legislation while introducing a less “prescriptive” list of exceptions than currently exists.
• Permit an institution’s coaching staff member to observe non-organized sport-specific activities involving current student-athletes when that individual, as a part of regular employment duties, is monitoring a facility available to all students.
• Permit student-athletes to be involved in a date of competition or an alumni contest, or both, during the nontraditional season without losing a season of participation.
• Allow institutions to schedule an alumni game any time during a nontraditional or traditional segment in sports that treat the game as an exempted contest.

‘Identity initiative’

The Council devoted much of its meeting in Indianapolis – as well as a meeting Wednesday night with the Division III Chancellors and Presidents Advisory Group – to discussion of another effort originating from the white papers.

Council members agreed they are “very close” to finalizing a strategic communication platform, or a statement designed to describe Division III’s philosophy in “clear and concise” terms and better equip the division to promote its distinctive approach to intercollegiate athletics. That effort stems from the second of the nine white papers, a document that addressed the division’s philosophy and identity.

The platform’s creation is a key step in the Council’s “identity initiative” and will help establish themes for use in describing Division III to campus and community constituencies and prospective student-athletes and parents. It also will support the selection of such tools as slogans, signage, media, programming or other appropriate methods for activation of those themes.

Council members agreed to finalize the platform within the next month and to consider recommendations for activation of the statement at its October meeting. They also agreed that the initiative and its results will be the major topic for discussion at the Friday-morning issues forum during the January Convention.

Other highlights

In other actions during its summer meeting, the Presidents Council:

• Endorsed a Management Council action to revise how penalties are applied for institutions’ failure to comply with sports-sponsorship and other membership requirements.
• Approved conceptual recommendations from the Division III Strategic Planning and Finance Committee. The recommendations would require use of Tier Two funds in the Strategic Initiatives Grant Program for “integration institutes” and  provide more flexibility in how funds are applied to the required programming topics of student-athlete well-being and community service, sportsmanship, and diversity and gender equity. The Council also approved in concept funding for professional-development initiatives for minority athletics administrators and an increase in funding for such programming for faculty athletics representatives and conference sports information directors. The initiatives will be developed for implementation in 2010-11.
• Voted to formally ask the Playing Rules Oversight Panel to delay implementation in Division III of two playing rules – one requiring a lighted backboard in basketball and the other requiring a wireless microphone for the referee in football. The changes are scheduled for implementation in 2010-11. The Council expressed concern about costs associated with the rule changes and the financial difficulty that some institutions face in the current economic climate.