Feedback Forum is a monthly feature designed to highlight key issues or potential policy changes and solicit immediate feedback from the membership.

The types of issues on which Feedback Forum will seek input are:

Proposed policy and procedural changes. Periodically, the national office staff is asked to change, revise or eliminate a policy or procedure that may affect member institutions, conferences or the general public. If the suggested changes are legislative in nature and contained in the Manual, it would be necessary for them to be considered in accordance with the policies established by each division. There are instances, however, in which the changes being suggested are not legislative; rather, they are procedural and are left to the discretion of the appropriate oversight committee and/or staff. In such cases, because the changes may affect member institutions, it would be advantageous for the staff to receive input from member schools as to how the oversight committee and/or national office should proceed.

Proposed rule-making changes. NCAA committees and cabinets routinely seek feedback on key issues they are addressing. This feedback is sought through a variety of means (for example, circulation of agendas and supplements before meetings, direct mailings soliciting feedback). Though the staff will continue to solicit membership feedback in those ways, Feedback Forum will highlight key issues being discussed before important meetings in order for the appropriate committees to receive membership input to help guide their decisions.

* * *

This month's Feedback Forum features proposed revisions to the Division I athletics certification program.

After a thorough review process involving internal and external constituencies, the Division I Committee on Athletics Certification has recommended several changes intended to increase efficiency and reduce the scope of the certification program. At the forefront of the suggested changes is elimination of four operating principles and discontinuation of the interim-report process. The committee hopes to implement these initiatives as soon as possible, through noncontroversial or emergency legislation, in response to membership calls to streamline the program.

Currently the athletics certification program requires development of mission and goal statements that include specific written elements. Institutions have taken issue with this mandate because it focuses on the semantics of the mission and goals statements, as opposed to an institution's ability to live up to them. The committee agrees that it should refocus on the actual practices -- rather than promises -- of each athletics program and has suggested the elimination of this operating principle.

In addition, the committee believes the fiscal integrity operating principles should be removed from the program to eliminate duplicative requirements of member institutions. Because financial policies and practices are addressed through other legislative means (that is, Constitution 6.2), the committee no longer sees the need to require institutions to complete an additional review of this area. Similarly, the sportsmanship and ethical conduct matters currently under study through the certification program should be left to the oversight of conference offices and the NCAA Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.

Finally, the interim-report process, which requires institutions to file a status report with the committee midway between full self-studies, has not had the effect previously envisioned. Rather, completion of the process requires additional work of institutions and often has not produced intended results. Given the lack of significant outcomes over the five-year history of the interim-report process, the committee is advocating discontinuation of this requirement.

In January the committee will ask the Division I Management Council to adopt noncontroversial or emergency legislation intended to significantly reduce bureaucracy within the program and to immediately streamline the athletics certification process for all Division I institutions. In preparation for that review, the committee has asked the membership to consider the following questions:

Do you support the Committee on Athletics Certification's efforts to streamline and reduce bureaucracy within the certification program through elimination of the athletics mission statement requirement?

Do you support the Committee on Athletics Certification's efforts to streamline and reduce bureaucracy within the certification program through elimination of the fiscal integrity requirements?

Do you support the Committee on Athletics Certification's efforts to streamline and reduce bureaucracy within the certification program through elimination of the sportsmanship and ethical conduct requirements?

Do you support the Committee on Athletics Certification's efforts to streamline and reduce bureaucracy within the certification program through discontinuation of the interim-report process?

Please provide responses and comments to Keith Gill, NCAA director of membership services, at kgill@ncaa.org.