A 1999 Faculty Athletics Representatives Association survey revealed that the large majority (80 percent) of FARs are elected or appointed with no term limit. Although I have seen no hard data, I believe that many perceive a push toward term appointments. If such momentum continues and term limits were to become the norm for faculty reps, then it would seem to follow that the faculty voice in the NCAA governance process would be diminished.

There are reasonable arguments for term limits. At the university, the FAR represents the faculty, and all interested faculty should have an opportunity to serve in that role. Long-term FARs may become so identified with the athletics department that there is at least a perception that their objectivity suffers -- they may be seen more a part of the athletics regime than part of the faculty. With no term rotation, the current gender and ethnic makeup of the FAR group would tend toward the status quo (overwhelmingly white males). Term limits would allow for a more diverse group more quickly.

So what's the problem with a term appointment? First, it takes time to understand the responsibilities of the job. I've had fellow conference FARs and campus athletics committee members say that they were in their third year of service before they really began to become familiar with all the aspects of their responsibilities. However, let's assume that university faculty are reasonably bright and capable individuals and that they learn quickly. What's the real problem then?

In my view, the real problem of an FAR with a fixed term of service is the unintended consequence of a further diminished voice of the faculty in the NCAA governance process. I say "further diminished" because the Division I-A athletics directors and a representative group of Division I-A FARs already have formally expressed their collective concerns about their lack of input in the current governance process.

The faculty voice would become even more diminished when faculty are the only group of stakeholders (other than students) whose term is fixed. Other major voices -- CEOs, ADs, SWAs and conference commissioners -- are not appointed to terms. There is no doubt that sustained long-term service adds to one's credibility and effectiveness in any organization, including the NCAA.

Before I was an FAR, I chaired the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports and as such had an occasion to address the Division I-A football coaches at their annual meeting on the topic of spring practice. When I was finished and the question period began, it was no surprise that the first coach to comment was Joe Paterno, and the second was Tom Osborne. It was clear which coaches exerted the most influence in that group.

While we do not have similar icons among the faculty rep group, our most recognizable reps are those who currently serve in leadership roles (for example, Percy Bates, chair of the Division I Management Council, and Jim Castaneda, chair of the Academics/
Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet) and who got there at least partly because of their sustained, creditable service. Even to serve on an NCAA committee requires being around for a while. NCAA committee appointments are for four years. If one were to extrapolate to a future where all FARs served a fixed, short term, then faculty would have little, if any, opportunity to serve on an NCAA committee and could virtually disappear as a group from the NCAA decision-making process.

So what to do?

It is appropriate for CEOs to demonstrate control of the athletics enterprise, both on their campuses and beyond. However, I do think there are some measures that CEOs should consider that might satisfy their idea of the appropriate nature of an FAR appointment while not having the unintended consequence of diminishing the national faculty voice.

First, flatten the learning curve by having the incoming FAR serve an apprentice role for at least one year. This obviously would take different forms on different campuses. The role might be the vice-chair of the athletics committee or some other position, but it should connect the new person to the everyday affairs of the FAR position.

Also, include that person in conference and NCAA matters. Encourage the apprentice to attend at least a sample of conference and national meetings before the actual term begins. This would allow the new faculty rep to be more ready to handle the campus role and also better prepared to make an impact on conference and national issues. A minimum term length should be five years, with the possibility to serve an additional term or terms if conference or national involvement merited. Again, consider the alternative -- if all FARs served one five-year term, the faculty voice in the NCAA would be greatly diminished.

I don't think anyone, especially CEOs, wants to diminish the faculty voice. Faculty always have been the most vocal group on campus and nationally on issues of academic reform and student-athlete welfare. Understanding both the consequences of term limits for FARs and the need to properly induct the FAR into the position is important for CEOs as they exercise their appropriate control, yet still enable, even maximize, the faculty voice on critical national issues.

Dennis Wilson is the faculty athletics representative at Auburn University.