Jul 22, 2010 8:59:32 AM

Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee members had a chance to react to some legislative proposals that were hot off the press, using their summer meeting late last week to take a first look at seven proposals Division III conferences submitted by the July 15 deadline for the 2011 Convention.

Among those measures is one that generated debate within the Division III governance structure earlier this year regarding whether student-athletes should be allowed to "earmark" funds they raise themselves for athletics purposes (such as uniforms, equipment or team trips during the nontraditional segment) toward the actual and necessary expenses for those items.

Current legislation precludes that practice, but four conferences (the Colonial States Athletic, Little East, New Jersey Athletic and Presidents' Athletic) are sponsoring a proposal to allow it, with dollars raised above necessary and actual expenses being allocated to the team or the athletics department.

The concept came up earlier from the Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee and received mixed reaction from the Management Council at its 2010 Convention meeting, before the Presidents Council subsequently called time out on the idea, preferring to wait for a broader debate within the membership, which now seems positioned to occur.

In its preliminary discussion about the proposal last week, the Division III SAAC members understood it would be permissive legislation but were concerned about how it may conflict with team-building and place unwarranted expectations on individual student-athletes to raise dollars that might not be easy for them to do.

In a discussion session with the Division III Management Council on Sunday, SAAC member Brittany Petrella of Rowan said it might require student-athletes to concentrate more on fundraising than participating in other aspects of campus life.

The most disturbing aspect about it to most SAAC members, though, is that it might tend to break along economic lines.

"Since it would be permissive legislation, it gives the school a chance to weigh the pros and cons," said SAAC Member Philip Tonucci of Bowdoin. "But it also can be regarded almost as a job."

The other membership proposal that already has the requisite sponsorship (at least two conferences) divided SAAC members, as well. The issue is whether certified strength and conditioning personnel (which also could be a coach) can conduct voluntary workouts for student-athletes at any time during the calendar year.

While most SAAC members liked the idea of facilitating workouts for athletes who just want to stay in shape or improve an aspect of their game, the "is it voluntary or expected" concern arose again.

"Especially since the coach also can be the one doing the workouts if he or she is qualified, there's more pressure on the student-athletes to participate, even though it is voluntary," Petrella told the Management Council.

SAAC members also were concerned about an unfair advantage for those schools that are able to employ strength and conditioning personnel.

In their review of other proposals, SAAC members liked an Empire 8 idea (which still needs a co-sponsor) to allow for more people in the bench area at championships, though they understand that it would be up to the institution to fund their travel and per diem ("SAAC supports this but realizes they aren't footing the bill," Tonucci said).

But they don't like a measure from the Allegheny Mountain Athletic Conference (which also needs a co-sponsor) that would reduce contests in sports that have 11 or more already. That proposal is primarily financially based, but SAAC members – not surprisingly – don't want to reduce their competitive opportunities.

Transgender issues and sports wagering

In non-legislative discussions at the joint SAAC/Management Council meeting on Sunday, the groups talked about policies and procedures regarding transgender student-athletes. While that issue isn't on the front burner for most institutions, the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee believes institutions should at least have a plan in place if and when an issue arises on their campus.

Recognizing that these kinds of gender-related decisions are highly personal and likely not made to gain a competitive advantage (especially at the Division III level), SAAC members say that student-athlete well-being and educational concerns should be the priority in these discussions.

The student-athletes felt that schools should have a plan in place to ensure the well-being of transgender student-athletes. While they recognize the importance of having a policy in place to address competitive equity, their main concern was student-athlete well-being.

Some of the Management Council members noted that it was difficult for the transgender issue to rise as a priority for most campuses when other gender and diversity issues (homophobia, for example) are more prevalent, but SAAC members stressed that these individuals – while not many in number – should be included in campus-based discussions of establishing inclusive environments.

The current NCAA position regarding transgender student-athletes recommends that institutions use the gender classification that student-athletes have from their state (such as a driver's license, tax documents or voter registration) in the eligibility certification process.

Division III SAAC members said they would support the NCAA pursuing a more formal policy, while realizing that would have to come through the Association-wide governance structure.

The SAAC and Management Council also discussed results from the NCAA's latest study on student-athlete trends in sports wagering, which raised some warning flags, particularly with Division III male golfers.

SAAC members said while they weren't overly alarmed by the results, they said it isn't surprising that Division III student-athletes may be more prone to the behavior because the educational focus on such compliance issues is more prevalent at the Division I level.

In that vein, they advised a more targeted educational approach to Division III student-athletes and perhaps some alternative methods, such as guest speakers or personal testimonies rather than lumping a general message into a preseason or athlete-orientation meeting.

Along those lines, the Division III Strategic-Planning and Finance Committee has updated its conference grant program policy to highlight sports-wagering education as a best practice for tier-two student-athlete well-being programming, and to create a specific line for this topic in tier three.