RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

NCAA DIVISION I MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE

1. STRUCTURE.

a. Division I Board of Directors.

(1) Recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that under any proposed modification to the Division I governance structure; the Division I Board of Directors should retain its primacy in the structure and serve as the division’s principal leadership body. It is the Governance Subcommittee’s intention that as a result of its recommended changes, which are set forth in this report, the Board of Directors will be aided in its role to establish working principles for the division, set the divisional agenda (both the legislative and non-legislative agenda) and examine broad policy initiatives.

(2) Function and Purpose.   While the Governance Subcommittee is not recommending major changes to the Board of Directors’ current duties, which include establishing and directing general policy, developing a strategic plan, approving the annual budget and adopting bylaws, it is the Governance Subcommittee’s intention that this new structure will better enable the Board to focus primarily on setting the division’s strategic course and agenda.  As described in more detail later in this working document, it is the subcommittee’s goal that the Board spend less time on managing the details of Division I legislation and more time, with the help of the Leadership Council, on setting the course for Division I and directing the governance substructure for a more coordinated approach to addressing issues. Under this recommendation the Board remains the ultimate legislative authority in Division I.

(3) Size and Composition. Although the Governance Subcommittee received some membership comments suggesting expansion of the Division I Board of Directors to accommodate representatives from each of the 31 multisport conferences, the subcommittee did not consider the issue to be under its purview.

(4) Reporting Lines. The following governance bodies shall report to the Division I Board of Directors under the proposed changes to the structure:

· Division I Presidential Advisory Group;

· The proposed Leadership Council;

· The proposed Legislative Council; and

· Committee on Academic Performance (Until such time as its work in developing the program is complete).

(5) Representational Issues. At its July 2007 meeting, the Governance Subcommittee reiterated its goal of ensuring the various relevant perspectives of faculty and athletics administrators of both genders and all ethnicities be adequately represented under the new governance structure and stressed the important role the Board will play in reviewing the slate of conference nominees for cabinets and councils by ensuring there are adequate levels of representation before approving appointments.

b. Division I Presidential Advisory Group.

(1) Recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that the Division I Presidential Advisory Group remain intact under the proposed new Division I governance structure as this body plays an important role in providing advice to the Board of Directors in leading the division. Further, in making this recommendation, the subcommittee determined that since only 18 of 31 multisport conferences are represented on the Board of Directors, the Presidential Advisory Group as now structured remains critical to ensuring communication among all conferences at the presidential level.

(2) Size and Composition. The subcommittee is recommending no change to the size and composition of the current Division I Presidential Advisory Group.

c. Restructuring the current Division I Management Council.

Recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee recommends restructuring the current Division I Management Council by establishing two distinct bodies that would report to the Board of Directors. These bodies would be called the Leadership Council and the Legislative Council.

(1) Leadership Council.

(a) Function and Purpose. The Leadership Council would be the primary advisory group to the Board of Directors on strategic and policy issues. and The Leadership Council would focus on examining issues on the horizon of intercollegiate athletics and would assist the Board by providing background information, comments and advice on non-legislative matters and on selected legislative proposals. The Leadership Council would be charged with helping to chart the division’s course and its members would be expected to have a national focus in their deliberations rather than an institutional or a conference-based one. This body would not only receive authority as directed by the Board of Directors to act on a wide array of matters, but it would also be responsible for identifying issues that could impact intercollegiate athletics as a whole. It is anticipated that this forward looking body would assist the Board by providing the Board with background information, comments and advice on non-legislative matters and selected legislative proposals either of particular importance to or with broad impact on the division. The level and type of legislative advice offered by the Leadership Council would be determined by the nature of issues being examined. Additionally, it is anticipated that the Leadership Council would retain some of the current Management Council’s jurisdiction with regard to Association-wide and Division I committees.

(b) Size and Composition. The Governance Subcommittee concluded that the 49 member Management Council is too large to provide for effective dialogue among members; accordingly, the subcommittee recommends that the Leadership Council be limited to 31 members with one representative from each of the 31 multisport conferences. In making this recommendation to reduce the size of the council, the subcommittee recommends a system of weighted voting reflective of the current voting balance among conferences in the governance structure.

The subcommittee discussed the importance of having administrators and faculty members that are leaders on their campuses and within their conferences serving on this council. The Leadership Council, true to its name, should be populated by a diverse group of leaders who the Board and the governance structure can feel confident will be able to address the major issues facing the division. The subcommittee noted that the multisport conferences must be committed to both identifying leaders who are willing to serve and to growing a diverse pool of leaders.

(c) Reporting Lines. It is recommended that the following Association-wide and Division I committees report to the Leadership Council on policy matters:

Association-wide Committees.

· Honors Committee;

· Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee;

· Postgraduate Scholarship;

· Research;

· Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct;

· Walter Byers Scholarship; and

· Women’s Athletics.

Division I Committees.

· Athletic Certification;

· Infractions;

· Infractions Appeals;

· Student-Athlete Advisory Committee; and

· Student-Athlete Reinstatement.

[Note: Most of These committees currently report to the Division I Management Council.]

(d) Meeting Schedule. It is anticipated that the Leadership Council will have three regular meetings per year, but it may also be called together to address special issues or at the request of the Board of Directors. Given that the Leadership Council and the Legislative Council have separate and distinct functions, the two councils will not necessarily meet directly before or after one another.

(2) Legislative Council.

(a) Recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee is recommending the establishment of a legislative body called the Legislative Council, which with Board oversight, would serve as the primary legislative body in the Division I governance structure. This body would assume most of the legislative functions currently performed by the Division I Management Council. The intent behind this recommendation is to provide increased expertise and coordination in the legislative area, which is especially important given the volume of legislation and the need for interim conference communication in Division I.

(b) Role and Function. The Legislative Council would be responsible for considering and ultimately voting on all legislative proposals being considered in the annual legislative cycle. It is intended that through annual delegation of specified legislative proposals by the Board, the Legislative Council would take final action on the day-to-day legislative matters necessary for the efficient management of Division I, leaving discretion to the Board to act or and that the Board of Directors would be better able to focus on the broader issues facing the division. Legislative action would not be considered final until the conclusion of either the Board’s January or April meeting (as appropriate), which ensures that the Board has the opportunity for final review and oversight. This recommendation is designed to provide the Board with the ability to consider any proposal in the cycle while at the same time not requiring the Board to look at every proposal as is currently the case. Pursuant to this recommendation, the Board would have the option of leaving the everyday legislative details to the Legislative Council, while being able to focus on those key proposals warranting presidential review. Under this recommendation, the Legislative Council would take action on all legislative proposals in the annual cycle and the council’s action would be considered the “default position” unless the Board decides further review and consideration at the Board level is warranted. Under this recommendation, no action would be considered final until after the conclusion of the Board of Directors meeting. Pursuant to this recommendation, it is envisioned that the Board (with advice from the Leadership Council) would select proposals that warrant final approval by the Board.    Ideally, those proposals would be identified early in the cycle before the Legislative Council’s review, but it should be noted that the Board would have discretion to indicate a desire to review specified proposals at any point in the cycle.  

In addition to considering and voting on legislation, it is recommended that the Legislative Council assume most of the Legislative Review Subcommittee’s current functions, including:

· Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of legislative proposals;

· Developing educational materials regarding pending legislation;

· Developing a voting order chart for consideration of proposals;

· Considering waivers of legislation. (A subgroup of this body shall be designated to serve as an Administrative Review body);

· Identifying possible interpretative issues for the Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee (LRIC); and

· Serving as an appellate body for LRIC. (LRIC shall serve as a standing committee that reports to this council.)

(c) Size and Composition. As was the case with the Leadership Council, the Governance Subcommittee recommends that the Legislative Council be smaller in size than the current 49-member Management Council to allow for more in-depth discussions between council members. Specifically, it is recommended that the Legislative Council have 31 members representing each of the Division I multisport conferences with weighted voting reflective of the current voting balance among Division I multisport conferences. The subcommittee noted that while legislative expertise will not be required to serve on this council, it is anticipated that many of its members will have an interest in legislative work.

(d) Reporting Lines. The following committees shall report to the Legislative Council due to the primary nature and focus of their work:

· The Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee (LRIC); shall report to the Legislative Council.

· Athletic Certification; and

· Student-Athlete Reinstatement.

[Note: Major policy matters originating from any of these committees will be forwarded to the Leadership Council.]

Additionally, legislative matters originating from the Board, the Leadership Council or any of the six cabinets shall be forwarded to the Legislative Council for consideration. Further, comments from committees pertaining to legislative proposals will be shared with the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council, in turn, will report directly to the Board of Directors. The Legislative Council’s actions will also be shared with the Leadership Council for information but the Legislative Council will not be considered to report to the Leadership Council, as the two councils are on the same tier in the proposed governance structure. The Leadership Council may advise the Board regarding any legislative proposal, but cannot override or alter the Legislative Council’s action on a proposal.

(e) Meeting Schedule. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that the Legislative Council shall meet three times per year on a schedule similar to that of the current Management Council. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the Legislative Council will meet in late October or early November, at the NCAA Convention in January and then again in spring. Additionally, the Legislative Council may be asked by the Board of Directors to meet at other times to provide legislative advice.

d. Cabinets.

(1) Recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee is recommending that the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet be eliminated and replaced with a series of smaller issue-specific cabinets that have more limited topical jurisdiction than the current cabinets, along with members that have more focused expertise. The rationale behind this recommendation is that each smaller cabinet with more limited jurisdiction will be better able to provide expertise to the Board and councils while at the same time being more nimble than the current larger cabinets. In making this recommendation, the subcommittee acknowledges that there still may be a need for additional working groups to supplement the Division I governance structure but it is anticipated that the smaller cabinets will be better suited to address issues that suddenly arise and need immediate resolution.

(2) Cabinets, Role and Function. The Governance Subcommittee is recommending the establishment of the following six issue-specific cabinets:

(a) Championships/Sports Management Cabinet. The Championships/ Sports Management Cabinet would retain much of the jurisdiction of the current Championships/Competition Cabinet as set forth in Bylaw 21.7.6.3.2 except for issues pertaining to committee selections and Bylaw 16 issues, which would be assigned elsewhere in the substructure.

The following committees would report to the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet:

· Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports;

· Olympic Sports Liaison Committee;

· Rules Committees;

· Playing Rules Oversight Panel;

· The Football, Men’s Basketball and Women’s Basketball Issues Committees; (This recommendation calls for merging the Post-season Licensing Subcommittee of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet into the Football Issues Committee.) and

· All sport committees. (This recommendation also calls for merging the football issues committee and the post-season licensing subcommittee into one and for eliminating issues committees.)

(b) Administration Cabinet. The Administration Cabinet, true to its name, would be primarily responsible for addressing the administrative functions of Division I. This cabinet would assume many of the responsibilities of the current Management Council regarding the regular operations of the division. Cabinet duties would include:

· Issues related to the efficient management of Division I governance and the legislative process;

· Division I membership standards; and

· All committee selections.

Additionally, the following Association-wide committees would report to the Administrative Cabinet due to the annual flow and operational nature of their work:

· Honors Committee;

· Postgraduate Scholarship;

· Research; and

· Walter Byers Scholarship.

(c) Academics Cabinet. The Academics Cabinet would assume many of the functions currently performed by the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance (A/E/C) Cabinet with regard to academics, plus it would assume jurisdiction over all academic matters currently addressed elsewhere in the substructure. (Note: Due to the nature and volume of its work, the Committee on Academic Performance will report to the Board of Directors for the foreseeable future until such time as the implementation work is complete.) The distinction between the recommended Academics Cabinet and the current A/E/C Cabinet is that the new cabinet would not have jurisdiction over recruiting matters, the relationship with professional sports teams, amateurism issues and financial aid matters. The Academics Cabinet’s duties would include:

· Overseeing academic research and policies;

· Establishing, managing and monitoring eligibility standards;

· Working with Division II to ensure to the greatest extent possible that consistent information is available to prospective student-athletes;

· Working with the two-year college community;

· Ensuring the compilation and disclosure of academic rates;

· Working with the NCAA Eligibility Center to oversee the certification of initial eligibility from an academic standpoint;

· Serving as appellate body for initial eligibility waivers, progress toward degree waivers, core course and high school review/prospective student-athlete review appeal cases; and

· Once the program of incentives and disincentives is fully developed, assuming the administrative details of the program from the Committee on Academic Performance.

The following committees would report to the Academics Cabinet:

· Initial-Eligibility Waivers Committee;

· Progress Toward Degree Waiver Committee;

· Foreign Student Records; and

· High School Review Group.

(d) Recruiting, Athletics Personnel Issues and Pre-enrollment Issues. This cabinet would assume responsibility over issues pertaining to the recruitment of prospective student-athletes and other pre-enrollment activities, excluding pre-enrollment amateurism issues. The cabinet would be responsible for:

· Bylaw 13 recruiting matters;

· Bylaw 11 conduct and employment of athletics personnel issues; and

· Matters considered to be pre-enrollment inducements.

(e) Student-Athlete Financial Aid, Awards, Expenses and Benefits Cabinet. This cabinet would be charged with addressing the many issues that arise in the areas of financial aid, awards, expenses and benefits. Accordingly, this cabinet’s jurisdiction would include:

· Bylaw 15 financial aid matters; and

· Issues pertaining to Bylaw 16 awards, benefits and expenses for enrolled student-athletes.

(f) Amateurism Cabinet. True to its name, this cabinet would assume jurisdiction over pre and post enrollment amateurism issues not addressed elsewhere in the structure, including oversight of issues pertaining to the NCAA Eligibility Center’s amateurism work. This cabinet would be charged with examining the relationship between intercollegiate athletics and professional teams/organizations. Additionally, this cabinet would review issues related to endorsements and the use of a student-athlete’s name or likeness along with issues pertaining to sports wagering. This cabinet would serve as the final appellate body for cases involving the determination of facts related to the certification of amateur status per Bylaw 12.01.1.

The following committee would report to the Amateurism Cabinet:

· Amateurism Fact-Finding Body.

(3) Size and Composition. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that the new issue-specific cabinets be smaller in size than the current Championships/Competition Cabinet, which has 49 members and the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, which has 42 members. The rationale behind this recommendation is that smaller bodies naturally lend themselves to more exchange and dialogue among members. Further, smaller groups are more able to work as bodies of the whole rather than in subcommittees, which leads to more transparency in the process.

Specifically, the subcommittee is recommending that the Division I Championships/Sport Management Cabinet have 31 members to allow for one representative from each of the 31 multisport conferences. Although the subcommittee originally recommended that the Championships/ Competition Cabinet only have 21 members, it modified its recommendation after hearing from the membership that championships issues are central to conferences’ interactions with their membership. Therefore, the subcommittee is now recommending that each multisport conference be represented on this body. Weighted voting would be utilized similar to that utilized by the current Championships/Competition Cabinet.

The subcommittee is recommending that each of the remaining five other cabinets have 21 members. Of the 21 members, each of the 11 FBS conferences would be represented and the other 10 members would come from among the 20 FCS/Division I conferences on a rotating basis. Weighted voting is not recommended since all 11 FBS conferences would be represented and would constitute a majority. Pursuant to this recommendation, each FCS/Division I conference would have at least two but no more than three representatives serving on the five cabinets at any one time. To ensure conferences are able to appropriately manage their service opportunities in the governance structure, the Governance Subcommittee is recommending that a rotation schedule be established among the FCS and Division I conferences. This rotation would be based on an agreement among the conferences.

Further, given that the proposed cabinets would be smaller in size than the current cabinets, it is recommended that wherever possible, each cabinet shall work as a body of the whole rather than functioning as a series of subcommittees. This recommendation is intended to address the membership’s concern that under the current structure, the work of the various subcommittees’ may not always receive thorough review and vetting by the larger cabinets or councils due to the cabinets’ or councils’ lack of expertise regarding the issue. Accordingly, the subcommittee feels that by recommending that the cabinets’ work be done by the full group, more transparency in the process would be created. Although it is strongly recommended that the cabinets work as bodies of the whole, the subcommittee acknowledges that from time to time the cabinets will need to establish ad hoc groups to examine specific issues. In making this acknowledgement, the subcommittee noted there is a distinction between the need for periodic ad hoc groups and standing subcommittees.

[NOTE: See Attachment for a chart of the proposed Division I governance structure.]

2. LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

Since 1997 when the NCAA restructured its governance process, Division I has continued to seek to improve its legislative process, and as a result, the legislative process appears to work fairly well and to be understood by the membership. Accordingly, the Governance Subcommittee concluded there is no need to dramatically change the legislative process and noted any recommended changes should be easily understood by the membership and necessary for the efficient management of Division I. Accordingly, the subcommittee recommends the following legislative cycle, which is not significantly different than the cycle currently followed in Division I.

The Board of Directors with the help of the Leadership Council would help set the Division I legislative agenda by suggesting concepts for development by the governance substructure.

Conferences and the governance structure submit legislative concepts by July 15. *Board of Directors would have until its October meeting.

Note:

· The Board of Directors, Leadership Council, Legislative Council, governance substructure and the conferences would be permitted to propose legislation.

The six issue-specific cabinets would possibly meet in the early fall, similar to the timeframe in which the cabinets currently meet.

Notes:

· Given the recommendation that there be six issue-specific cabinets, it is anticipated that it would take a number of weeks to schedule all of the meetings. Since the cabinets would have more limited jurisdiction than the current cabinets, it is expected that most of these cabinets would meet less frequently than the current cabinets and that depending on the issues being considered in the cycle, some may not have to meet early in the legislative cycle to discuss legislative issues.

· The cabinets would play a legislative role similar to that currently played by the cabinets by offering comments and suggested modifications to legislative proposals.

· It is possible given the more limited jurisdiction of the cabinets that more than one cabinet will be asked to review and comment on a proposal, thereby providing the Legislative Council with a variety of different perspectives from which to consider a proposal.

Legislative Council would meet in late October or early November for a two-day meeting to begin reviewing the legislative proposals in the annual legislative cycle.

Notes:

· The Legislative Council would meet slightly later in the fall than the Management Council typically has to ensure the cabinets and conferences have adequate time to review the proposals in the annual legislative cycle prior to this meeting.

· Ideally, it may be helpful for the Legislative Council to consolidate and reconcile similar proposals at this meeting, but it may be too early in the legislative process for the council to be able to perform this task. If the Legislative Council is unable to reconcile legislative proposals at this meeting due to timing issues, the Legislative Council would be charged with reconciling proposals at its January meeting.

The Initial Modification Period would be extended seven days following the Legislative Council meeting to allow sponsors to modify and adjust proposals in light of the Legislative Council’s comments and suggestions.

It is envisioned that at points during the legislative cycle, the Leadership Council may offer comments and advice to assist the Board of Directors regarding select legislative proposals in the annual legislative cycle.

The Division I Official Notice would be published by December 1.

Note:

· The subcommittee feels it is important to provide the governance substructure and affiliated groups with time to review the legislative proposals in the cycle and wants to ensure that there is not too much compaction in the meeting schedules. Accordingly, the subcommittee recommends moving the publication date for the Division I Official Notice from November 15 to December 1.

The Legislative Council and Board of Directors would meet at the annual NCAA Convention.

The Legislative Council would meet at the beginning of the NCAA Convention to formally consider legislation, similar to the process used by the current Division I Management Council, whereby some proposals are supported for adoption, others are sent out for additional membership comment and others are defeated.

Notes:

· Specifically, the Legislative Council would have three options when considering proposals. Those options would be:

ü Adopt the proposal upon initial review – (Category 1);

ü Send the proposal out for additional membership comment – (Category 2); and

ü Defeat the proposal – (Category 3).

· This recommendation envisions that the Legislative Council would follow the same voting process currently followed by the Management Council, whereby proposals are required to receive at least 2/3 support of the members present and voting to receive initial support for adoption. Proposals that do not receive the requisite 2/3 support but receive at least a majority of the members that either support the proposal for adoption or support sending the proposals out for comment, would be sent out for additional membership comment.

· The distinction between the current legislative process and the proposed process is the type of action required by the Board of Directors subsequent to the Legislative Council’s actions. Currently the Board of Directors is required to consider every proposal receiving support from the Management Council. The proposed recommendation indicates that would properly empower the Board will to oversee all legislative actions but would only require Board action on those proposals identified by the Board as requiring further review. Pursuant to this recommendation, no actions of the Legislative Council will be considered final until after the Board meeting to ensure the Board may consider any proposal it desires. (See below for further details.)

The Board of Directors would meet at the NCAA Convention and as part of its agenda it would receive a report from the Legislative Council regarding legislative actions taken by that group.

Notes:

· To assist the Board in being able to focus on the key issues facing Division I, it is recommended that at the Board of Directors January meeting the Legislative Council shall report its legislative actions by providing the Board with a listing of those proposals which are supported upon initial review (Category 1) and those proposals which were defeated by the Legislative Council (Category 3). It is not envisioned that the Board of Directors would choose to consider every proposal in the Category 1 and 3 listings, but that the Board, with the advice and assistance of the Leadership Council, would opt to review select proposals. Therefore, it is recommended that the Legislative Council’s actions would be considered the “default position” on proposals unless the Board of Directors determines further legislative review and consideration is necessary. In the event the Board determines further review is necessary, the Board could seek additional feedback from the substructure or take action itself. No legislative action by the Legislative Council would be considered final until after the conclusion of the Board of Directors meeting. The intent behind this recommendation is to ensure that the Board has proper legislative oversight and authority necessary to examine the key legislative issues facing Division I but is not required to examine every proposal being considered in the Division I legislative cycle. Simply put, under this recommendation while the Board still has the ability to examine any legislative proposal in the annual legislative cycle, the Board should only have to act on legislative proposals it identifies as warranting attention at the presidential level.

· Legislative proposals for which the Legislative Council recommends additional membership review and comment would be listed as Category 2 proposals and would be shared with the Board as information in January.

The current 60-day comment period remains intact to provide the membership and affiliate groups with an opportunity to share opinions and amendments to amendments that are less expansive in scope.

In late March or earlier April, the Legislative Council would meet to consider those proposals remaining in the annual legislative cycle.

In late April, the Board of Directors would meet and as part of its agenda it would receive a report from the Legislative Council on legislative actions taken at its most recent meeting. As was the case in January, the Legislative Council’s legislative actions shall not be considered final until the conclusion of the Board meeting. Again, the Board would have the authority to review any action by the Legislative Council and take independent action.

This model assumes the existence of a membership override process similar to the current process. Legislative actions would be considered final after the Board of Directors meeting concludes.

This model also assumes provisions would be made to allow for the consideration of emergency and non-controversial legislation throughout the course of the legislative cycle. The current voting process and requirements for adoption of emergency or non-controversial proposals shall remain intact.

Under this model, the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) would vote separately on football issues as is the current practice. Additionally, FCS conferences currently voting on football issues at the Management Council level will continue to do so at the Legislative Council level.

3. REPRESENTATIONAL ISSUES AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS.

a. Gender and Diversity Requirements.

Throughout its examination the Governance Subcommittee has been committed to ensuring that the new governance structure would be designed to attract a diverse group of Division I leaders while at the same time providing the 31 multisport conferences with some flexibility in the nomination process. In addition, it is expected that the Board of Directors will ensure that the governance bodies include a diverse group of representatives and that opportunities for growth in leadership positions is encouraged. Mindful of these objectives, the subcommittee considered a number of options, including applying the current diversity requirements in the aggregate across the two councils and six cabinets level, yet eventually the subcommittee moved away from the concept after hearing concerns from the membership. [Note: In the current structure, diversity requirements are applied to the Management Council independently and to the two cabinets in the aggregate.]

The Governance Subcommittee eventually settled on a recommendation which it feels will enhance the level of diversity represented in the governance structure while still providing the conferences with some flexibility in the appointment process. The Governance Subcommittee is recommending the legislated minimums of 20% ethnic minorities and 35% of either gender be applied independently to two separate groups of governance bodies, i.e. the three 31 member governance bodies and the five 21 member governance bodies. Specifically, the subcommittee is recommending that the representational minimums be applied to the 93 service opportunities provided by the 31 member Legislative Council, Leadership Council and Championships/Sports Management Cabinet and that the minimum percentages be applied separately to the 105 service opportunities provided by the five 21 member cabinets. The subcommittee is also recommending that the appointment process be subject to additional Board oversight to help ensure that each governance body is balanced and that the required minimums are just a starting point and not an end in and of themselves. Additionally, as part of its oversight function, the Board would strive to ensure those serving at the councils and cabinets levels represent a variety of perspectives and viewpoints reflective of the diversity in Division I.

Further, it is recommended that the Football Bowl Subdivision would be responsible for meeting the diversity requirements at each of the two tiers at the level approximately equal to their percentage of representation at that tier (1/3 and 1/2) and that the other two subdivisions should together be responsible for the diversity requirements at each of the two tiers at a level equal to their percentage of representation (2/3 and 1/2).

The subcommittee as a way to provide more flexibility to conferences in nominating a diverse slate of interested and qualified representatives started to discuss the fact that if a recommends that the terms of conference representatives on the various governance bodies within a tier would rotate at the same time that would. making new appointments. The subcommittee has yet to work out the logistical details of such a rotation; accordingly, the subcommittee will continue its examination of this issue. Additionally, if possible the subcommittee recommends all conferences within a subdivision rotating representatives at the same time as well.

b. Positional Requirements.

While the Governance Subcommittee is not recommending specific minimum percentages with regard to positional requirements, the subcommittee is recommending that the new governance structure be populated by faculty members and athletics administrators that hold a variety of positions. In this light, the subcommittee has clearly stated that those serving in the Division I governance structure shall represent a variety of perspectives and viewpoints reflective of the diversity of the Division I membership and the new structure shall provide interested administrators and academicians with leadership and growth opportunities.

Further, upon hearing concerns voiced at the April 2007 Management Council meeting, the subcommittee went on record stating that given that intercollegiate athletics is woven into the fabric of higher education, it is imperative that the faculty voice be heard as part of the proposed new governance structure. 

Accordingly, the subcommittee is recommending that the 31 multisport conferences work together to ensure that faculty are represented in the structure. and the subcommittee will ask the Board of Directors to examine the slate of nominees of those asked to serve in the structure to ensure the slate reflects not only appropriate levels of gender and ethnic diversity, but positional diversity as well.

Further, at its July 2007 meeting, the Governance Subcommittee reiterated its goal of ensuring the various r