ORLANDO, Florida — The Division II Community Advisory Group began to study in earnest the implications of proposed legislation that reshapes the concept of community engagement at its October 3 meeting.

The proposal, sponsored by the Division II Management and Presidents Councils for the 2007 NCAA Convention, establishes a community-engagement initiative that allows institutions relief from standard recruiting, promotional, and awards and benefits regulations when they engage in activities with a community purpose.

The legislation defines the parameters of a community-engagement activity as one in which an institution "participates for the primary purpose of enhancing the community rather than benefiting the institution." Further, the institution must be able to demonstrate how the engagement of the institution’s assets (student-athletes and facilities, for example) meets a specified community need or shows how the use of those assets embellishes a college-wide community support strategy.

Under those conditions, the proposal provides for nine "exceptions" to current NCAA rules that allow the institution to participate in legitimate, organized and predetermined engagement activities. The goal is to help Division II members align with the strategic-positioning platform the Presidents Council has established for the division, which places a premium on community involvement as a primary characteristic of Division II colleges and universities.

Proponents of the legislation, including the Presidents Council, say it eliminates some of the "red tape" regulations that would otherwise prevent schools from fully developing community-based partnerships.

During its discussion, though, several advisory group members cautioned that while the proposal was sound, some Division II administrators might balk at the flexibility it provides because it could lead to a competitive or recruiting advantage for institutions in more urban locales with access to a large number of prospective student-athletes.

Among the exceptions in the proposal are those that suspend recruiting regulations when institutional staff and representatives of an institution’s athletics interests interact with prospects during community-engagement activities. Others allow enrolled student-athletes to contact prospects in relation to the engagement activity, regardless of the time of year it is held. Some people believe those "freedoms" require a level of trust that could be uncomfortable for various constituents.

Other concerns were that the legislation might give Division II schools an advantage over Divisions I and III institutions in the same area (since recruiting rules would be significantly different) and that it might unfairly affect Division II institutions that sponsor a Division I sport.

But advisory group members agreed that the proposal was important enough to attempt to assuage those concerns through a concerted educational effort, similar to the push given the amateurism deregulation package that Division II adopted several years ago. One group member said the membership must realize that the issue is not about institutions or teams gaining an advantage, but about the entire division benefiting from legislation that aligns with what Division II is about. "This is not something we want to do, but something we have to do," he said. "We need to educate our constituencies that this really isn’t an option."

To that end, advisory group members agreed to take advantage of opportunities this fall to discuss the proposal in conference and staff meetings. Members also noted that whatever resistance might develop would likely be at the administrative and faculty level — not from presidents and chancellors — since the Presidents Council already has endorsed the concept.

Presidents Council Chair Charles Ambrose, who sits on the advisory group as an ex officio member, said in fact that the Council is "passionate" about allowing Division II schools to strengthen their partnerships with their communities, and that the legislation is necessary to accomplish that goal. "We need to view this in the context of building community relationships rather than as a change in recruiting bylaws," Ambrose said.