HUNTINGTON BEACH, California -- The Division II Legislation Committee took its sixth pass at legislative deregulation July 17, conducting its annual summit with a focus on Articles 4 and 5 of the NCAA Constitution and on Bylaw 21.

Those examinations yielded a number of ways that pages could be excised from the Division II Manual, principally by eliminating the large amount of repetition that appears in language governing the organization of the division, the legislative process and the committee structure.

However, the most interesting discussion involved how the relationship has changed between the membership and the organization in general since the NCAA implemented a more federated governance model six years ago. On one hand, attendees pointed to evidence that the Division II model is working efficiently by noting that most legislative proposals are coming through the governance structure and that most of those are passing by lopsided margins -- almost always by at least 80 percent. Moreover, a fondness was expressed for the process itself in which each member institution and conference gets a vote. "We meet as a total body, and we debate and vote in front of everybody," said Dede Allen, senior woman administrator at the University of Alaska Anchorage. "I don't feel disenfranchised in Division II."

That appears to be the prevailing sentiment, but a number of recent occurrences raise the question of whether the process is working as well as it can.

One example related to 2003 Convention Proposal Nos. 21 and 25, both of which were sponsored by the Presidents Council and both of which passed with more than 80 percent of the vote. The intent of No. 21 was to specify that institutions must calculate minimum grade-point averages for student-athletes using the same method the institution used for all students; for No. 25, the intent was that 4-2-4 transfers be certified in the same manner as 2-4 transfers.

A controversy subsequently developed over whether the legislation was being applied in a way that was consistent with what was presented at the Convention. Putting aside which side was correct, the larger question might be, "Why aren't these potential problems addressed in advance as part of the Convention debate?"

More specialists needed?

Those attending the Deregulation Summit seemed to believe that at least part of the answer to that question might rest in whether enough rules practitioners are involved in the development and approval of legislation, both at the conference and national level.

Diane Husic, faculty athletics representative at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania and a member of the Legislation Committee, held herself up as an example of the disconnect. "On the local level, I am far down the rung on applying the rules," she said. "But I'm on a much higher level in another regard in my work with Division II committees."

One individual expressed frustration about complaints over a piece of financial aid legislation from a block of institutions whose conference sponsored, let alone supported, the legislation.

The Deregulation Summit also focused on how the membership feels paralyzed to act on interpreting any legislative matter that is even mildly controversial without a blessing from national office staff. The consequences of a misstep are perceived to be so great that coaches and administrators do not trust conference office interpretations unless the national office has verified those interpretations.

While some regarded the tendency toward overcaution as a negative, not all saw it as a problem. Jerry Vandergriff, football coach and athletics director at Angelo State University, said that he was constantly in the president's office in the days before the school hired a compliance coordinator. "I was in there so much he told me I was annoying him," Vandergriff said. "Now we have a compliance coordinator, and even though he's still a little paranoid, he is not near as paranoid as I was. As a division, we have come a million miles, I promise you."

Room for improvement

But there are a few more miles to go before the division reaches regulatory Nirvana. As one part of the solution, the attendees suggested conducting a Convention forum on the legislative process, all the way from conception to vetting to approval. (Part of that discussion involved whether the legislative-sponsorship requirement -- 15 institutions or two conferences with at least 15 members -- is too permissive or restrictive.)

The group also believed better understanding could be achieved if member schools would make more extensive use of the tools that are available to them -- for example, the Compliance Blueprint program and Compliance Assistant software. One participant went so far as to suggest withholding Division II enhancement funds from any institution that has not acquired and been trained in the use of Compliance Assistant software. Those attending also believed that the division would take a step in the right direction if it increased the number of self-reported violations.

In a way, the meeting seemed to illustrate that the deregulation process has reached a point at which many of the original objectives -- for example, fewer pages in the Manual, easier application of rules -- have been met. Substantial changes have been made in key sections of the Manual, especially with regard to amateurism, financial aid, and playing and practice seasons.

The question may be changing now to how the division can make the regulation that remains more effective and useful. And that appears to be a question that is at least as daunting as the one the Legislation Committee faced six years ago when it took on deregulation in the first place.