How often and when will the cabinets meet

Questions and Comments Received from the Membership regarding the

Proposed New Governance Structure

Governance Subcommittee?s Response

1. COMMUNICATIONS, COORDINATION AND EFFICIANCY.

a. There must be communication and coordination between the cabinets. This should be set forth in more detail. If the chairs of the cabinets are going to serve in a coordination role, that needs to be articulated as well.

The structure will provide an opportunity for the chairs of each of the cabinets (via a cabinet Administrative Committee, which would be comprised of leaders from the various cabinets) to communicate on a scheduled and regular basis by teleconference to ensure each cabinet is aware of issues being discussed by the other cabinets. It is the Governance Subcommittee?s goal that this new cabinet structure will actually provide for more coordination and communication on issues at the cabinet level than is provided in the current structure. This communication and coordination will be contingent on the cabinets? Administrative Committee and the staff making it a priority.

b. How will the Legislative Council and the Leadership Council coordinate on issues? There is going to have to be a great deal of dialogue.

A high level of dialogue between the Legislative and Leadership Councils will be essential to the success of the proposed new governance structure. Certainly, the staff will play a key role in ensuring a high level of communication between the two councils. Additionally, it is anticipated that there will be some level of overlap between the two councils with the chair/vice chair/or other members attending the meetings of the other council as needed. Additionally, it is anticipated that the chairs of the various cabinets will communicate on a regular basis via teleconference to ensure each cabinet is informed regarding the work, focus and direction of the other cabinets. The proposed new governances structure calls for a higher level of communication and coordination between the various governance bodies than what currently exists in the Division I governance structure.

c. It appears inefficient to have the Leadership Council and the Legislative Council consider different issues from the same governance reports. How will the work of one council be coordinated and communicated with the other?

The Governance Subcommittee believes the new process will add to the quality of work and discussion in the Division I governance process, and ultimately this enhanced discussion and work product will improve the overall efficiency of the Division I governance process.

Under the proposed new governance structure, the Leadership Council and the Legislative Council will purposefully have separate and distinct roles, yet they may examine similar issues. Currently, the Management Council spends the majority of its time examining legislative proposals and has little time for discussion of issues or policy. Pursuant to the Governance Subcommittee?s recommendations, it is envisioned that the Leadership Council, as a forward looking body, will identify broad policy issues many of which may possibly require legislative solutions. The Legislative Council, in turn, will be charged with examining these issues from a legislative standpoint and with providing legislative expertise. The two councils will work together to create a system of checks and balances to some extent with both bodies identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the other?s work. This relationship, by its very nature, will result in some overlap and short term inefficiency but it is the subcommittee?s position that the short term inefficiencies will be addressed in the long run by a sustaining work product.

From a reporting standpoint, the process should be efficient as cabinet reports will be forwarded to both bodies with a distinction being made between legislative and non-legislative action items.

The following is an example of how the two councils will provide a level of expertise regarding a current issue on the Division I agenda: The Leadership Council may seek to examine issues surrounding the culture of youth basketball while the Legislative Council may be charged with examining supporting legislation regarding access to prospects in the recruiting process. In this example, the Leadership Council would examine the broad issues, identify goals and develop suggested outcomes and the Legislative Council would develop specific legislative solutions as appropriate.

d. Where are the checks and balances in the proposed new system? Currently, the cabinets oversee the subcommittees? work and no action is final until the full cabinet approves. Under the new structure, what group will truly oversee the work of the cabinets?

Under the proposed new governance structure, both the Legislative Council and the Leadership Council will oversee the work of the cabinets, with the Legislative Council examining legislative matters and the Leadership Council examining policy matters. Additionally, under the proposed new governance structure, it is envisioned that the cabinets will work together on select issues to provide a variety of perspectives. It is proposed that the chairs of the various cabinets will meet via conference call periodically to review issues of note and to make sure there is a level of coordination between the cabinets. Finally, the fact that the cabinets will work predominately as bodies of the whole is intended to help ensure that concepts and ideas are thoroughly vetted and discussed by more people serving in the governance structure.

e. How will the coaches? voice be heard under the new structure especially if there are no issues committees?

At the time this question was raised, the Governance Subcommittee was recommending that the Football, Men?s Basketball and Women?s Basketball Issues Committees be eliminated. After hearing from those committees and others in the membership, the subcommittee revised its recommendation to provide that the issues committees shall remain intact. Further, all sport committees are going to be asked to examine whether they can more fully address non championships matters as part of their normal work or whether some other avenue of communication needs to be created. Last, with the Board and the Leadership Council charged with helping to develop the Division I agenda, it is likely that from time-to-time sports specific issues will be identified by those groups, which need special examination.

2. GOVERNANCE BODIES.

Leadership Council

a. If the Board of Directors is clearly in charge of the Division I agenda, how can we ensure the Leadership Council has meaningful agendas and this council does not just become a strategic planning cabinet?

Agendas for the Leadership Council will be purposefully designed to reflect the issues being discussed by the Board of Directors. Additionally, the Board and the NCAA president have indicated they will direct the Leadership Council to study key issues on the Division I agenda and the Leadership Council will be charged with seeking to identify issues for the Division I agenda.

b. The role of the Leadership Council still is unclear to many. There needs to be a set meeting schedule for conferences to anticipate the councils? work.

At its July 2007 meeting, the Governance Subcommittee sought to clarify the function and purpose of the Leadership Council as follows:

The Leadership Council will be the primary advisory group to the Board of Directors on strategic and policy issues. The Leadership Council will focus on examining issues on the horizon of intercollegiate athletics and will assist the Board by providing background information, comments and advice on non-legislative matters and on selected legislative proposals. The Leadership Council will be charged with helping to chart the division?s course and its members will be expected to have a national focus in their deliberations rather than an institutional or a conference-based one. The level and type of legislative advice offered by the Leadership Council will be determined by the nature of issues being examined.

Further, it is anticipated that the Leadership Council will have three scheduled meetings per year, with one occurring in the summer or early fall, another prior to the NCAA Convention and a third prior to the Board?s meeting in April. Such a schedule will not be dramatically different than the current Management Council?s meeting schedule and will be responsive to both the Board meeting schedule and the legislative process. At this point, the Governance Subcommittee is reluctant to set a more formal meeting schedule as they want the Leadership Council to be free to develop a schedule that is flexible enough to anticipate issues on the Division I agenda and responsive to the Division I Board of Directors? needs.

Legislative Council

c. Can the Legislative Council sponsor legislation?

Yes, the Legislative Council along with the Board of Directors, Leadership Council, cabinets and any of the 31 multi-sport conferences will be permitted to propose legislation under the proposed new governance structure.

d. Does this structure present a conflict of interest and can a body as large as the Legislative Council actually render rules interpretations? Should there be a separate Legislative Review Interpretations Committee?

The Governance Subcommittee has clarified the Legislative Review Interpretations Committee shall continue to serve as an independent committee charged with providing official rules interpretations. The Legislative Review Interpretations Committee would report to the Legislative Council, which in turn, will serve as an appellate body. The Governance Subcommittee has examined this role for the Legislative Council and feels the Legislative Council would be in the best position to oversee the interpretative process as it will have thoroughly examined the proposals as they are being considered through the legislative process.

Presidential Advisory Group (PAG)

e. Does the role of the PAG stay the same under this new structure? What is the relationship between the PAG and the Leadership Council? Do the bodies somehow merge?

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. Since the subcommittee?s recommendation calls for the current size and configuration of the Board of Directors to remain unchanged, the Presidential Advisory Group remains critical to ensuring communication among all multisport conferences at the presidential level. No changes are recommended to the current structure of the Presidential Advisory Group. The Division I Presidential Advisory Group will serve in an advisory role to the Board, not the Leadership Council.

Amateurism Cabinet

f. Why are pre- and post-enrollment amateurism issues addressed by different cabinets?

Since the time the question was raised, the Governance Subcommittee has made it clear that both pre- and post-enrollment amateurism issues will be addressed by the Amateurism Cabinet under the proposed new governance structure.

Committee on Academic Performance

g. All the work of the Committee on Academic Performance cannot be folded into the Academic Cabinet.

The Governance Subcommittee has changed its original recommendation to state that the Committee on Academic Performance shall remain as an independent governance body and shall report to the Division I Board of Directors for the foreseeable future.

3. CABINET SIZE AND STRUCTURE.

a. Having 21 members on the cabinet is both too big and too small.

The Governance Subcommittee has discussed the size of the cabinets numerous times and believes that cabinets of 21 members will result in bodies that are small enough to allow for good debate and discussion but still large enough to provide a variety of perspectives for national dialog. The subcommittee has discussed devising a method whereby, all 31 multisport conferences would have an opportunity to comment on cabinet agendas and issues regardless of whether the conference was actually represented on the cabinet. More discussion on this issue is anticipated.

b. Academic issues are important, therefore has thought been given to having 31 members on the Academic Cabinet?

Yes, the Governance Subcommittee discussed whether the Academic Cabinet should be larger in size but ultimately determined that twenty-one members is an appropriate size as it is small enough to allow for meaningful discussion while at the same time large enough to allow for sufficient representation of viewpoints from the membership. The subcommittee believes that this cabinet will be of sufficient size to address its workload.

c. The cabinets are not going to be able to do all the work they currently do working as bodies of the whole.

The smaller cabinets will have more limited jurisdiction, which is designed to ensure they can manage their workload. The focus of the cabinets will be that whenever possible, the cabinets will work as bodies of the whole. The real positive of the proposed new structure is that more viewpoints will be involved in discussions and both meeting agendas and reports will be more accessible to the membership than subcommittee materials are under the current structure.

d. How does this cabinet structure provide more transparency? It may provide less transparency as there will be more cabinets to track. How can the new structure truly be transparent if every conference is not represented on each of the cabinets?

Transparency will be provided by the fact cabinets will work as bodies of the whole and discussions on key issues will be shared with the entire group, and not just small subcommittees. Items of interest will be published as part of full cabinet agendas and a sense of the meetings will be captured by the full cabinet reports.

4. MEETING SCHEDULE.

a. How often and when will the councils and the cabinets meet? There needs to be some sort of schedule so people can anticipate meetings.

It is anticipated that the Leadership and Legislative Councils meet three times per year. The Legislative Council will meet on a schedule similar to the current Management Council, with meetings in October/November, at the NCAA Convention in January and in April. The meetings will be designed to follow the flow of the legislative calendar. The only difference between the current Management Council schedule and the anticipated Legislative Council schedule is that the October Legislative Council meeting might be a few weeks later to allow for more time for the cabinets to consider legislative proposals.

The Leadership Council?s meeting schedule will have more flexibility than that of the Legislative Council in that it will come together to identify issues for the Division I agenda and will gather to assist the Board of Directors. It is anticipated that the group will meet in the summer/early fall to get ready for the year ahead, prior to the NCAA Convention to examine legislative issues and sometime prior to the April Board of Directors meeting. The Governance Subcommittee has been reluctant to suggest a specific meeting schedule for this group noting the Board of Directors and the Leadership Council should more appropriately set the schedule based, in part, on the bigger issues facing Division I.

The cabinets will meet two or three times per year, depending on workload. The meeting schedule will be dictated by the legislative calendar and the direction of the Board and councils, so it is anticipated the cabinets will meet in the fall and then in the winter/spring. It is also anticipated that the cabinets meetings will be scheduled in close proximity to one another and that they will meet in conjunction with one another from time to time depending on the issues being examined. The subcommittee has indicated a desire to see the cabinets seek to take advantage of technology for conducting additional meetings.

b. What would the Legislative Council?s primary duties be during its third scheduled meeting in the annual legislative cycle?

The Legislative Council, at its third meeting, will address those issues remaining in the annual legislative cycle in addition to identifying possible legislative concepts for the upcoming cycle. With the Board and the Leadership Council looking to identify issues for the Division I agenda and focused on being more proactive rather than reactive, the Legislative Council will be in a better position to do more preparatory work earlier in the legislative cycle by identifying legislative issues, possible interpretative matters and areas of inconsistency.

c. How will technology be used?

The Governance Subcommittee has discussed its desire to see governance groups make more use of technology for meetings and believes the smaller cabinet structure, with the more flexible meeting schedule will be more conducive to using technology in lieu of some in-person meetings.

d. How will the membership be able to follow what is actually occurring at the cabinets level given the proposed number of cabinets and more flexible meeting schedule and how will this structure enhance the membership?s level of knowledge and trust in the substructure?

The meeting schedule will be published well in advance of meetings and the cabinets will schedule meetings near one another in time so the membership will not have to anticipate meetings scattered throughout the year.

As is the case now, meeting agendas and reports will be published on-line in advance of the meetings. The subcommittee believes it will be easier for the membership to follow the work of the smaller cabinets as it will be more visible and will not be trapped at the subcommittee level. The subcommittee has also observed that since the last major restructuring of the governance process, that the role of the conference office staffs has increased in terms of monitoring and interacting with the NCAA governance process and this resource will continue to be available.

5. REPRESENTATATIONAL ISSUES.

a. There needs to be assurances that there will be adequate positional representation.

The Governance Subcommittee has spent a great deal of time discussing issues regarding positional representation in the proposed new governance structure and has continued to espouse that the best approach for ensuring diverse representation is to set high expectations for the Division I membership and to place the Board of Directors in a stronger oversight role, rather than establishing minimum percentage requirements.

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.

This change in the Board of Directors? oversight role is substantial, as currently the Board is only asked to approve the slate of nominees as being in compliance with the legislated minimums and is not asked to provide any additional oversight regarding the overall compositional balance.

b. The faculty voice needs to be protected and minimum percentages need to be set forth.

The Governance Subcommittee is on record stating the importance of ensuring the faculty voice is well represented in the governance structure. Specifically, in response to membership feedback 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.

The Governance Subcommittee has discussed whether there should be established positional minimum percentages in the new Division I governance structure but the members do not feel such minimums will achieve the goal of ensuring the faculty perspective is woven into the fabric of our governance structure.

c. How do we ensure that conference staff members do not hold all the key leadership roles?

The representatives to the bodies in the new governance structure will be selected by the members of each conference, not by the conferences? office staff. Thus, those serving will be who the member institutions select. Further, it should be noted a number of conferences have determined only to appoint governance representatives who come from member institutions rather than from the conference office staffs.

Based on the current appointment practice, it is safe to assume that some conference staff members will be selected to serve within the governance structure based on their experience. Therefore, the 31 multisport conferences are going to have to work together, as they do now, to ensure a diverse slate of nominees.

d. How do you truly ensure the Leadership Council is diverse?

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.

To help ensure diversity at all levels within the governance structure, the Governance Subcommittee has spent a great deal of time developing and revising its recommendations regarding representation. Eventually, the subcommittee developed a recommendation, which it feels will achieve its goals of providing for diverse representation while at the same time providing conferences with some flexibility in the appointment process. Specifically, the Governance Subcommittee is recommending that the legislated minimums of 20 percent ethnic minorities and 35 percent 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). That means that the representational minimums will 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 shall 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. This oversight role for the Board is a change from its current role where it is just asked to ensure the slate of nominees meeting the legislated minimums.

e. Could the minimum percentage of either gender be raised to 37 percent to show a level of progress?

The Governance Subcommittee has discussed a variety of minimum percentages for service for either gender, including 37 percent, but believes that 35 percent of either gender to be applied independently to two separate groups of governance bodies is the appropriate recommendation. The Governance Subcommittee is discussing whether representatives serving in the structure who are both women and minorities shall be permitted to be ?double counted? in order to satisfy the legislative minimums. They will discuss this issue in more detail at their October meeting.

f. Will term limits continue to be four years? Should there be an elimination of term limits?

The Governance Subcommittee has discussed the possibility of both three- and four-year terms but ultimately settled on four-year terms feeling that four-year terms are the appropriate length of time to provide for a sense of continuity and experience in service without placing an undue burden on those serving. Additionally, for the Leadership Council, it was suggested that the Board of Directors have the authority to grant term exceptions when special circumstances warrant a need for more continuity. In addition, the Leadership Council would have the authority to extend terms for the Legislative Council, or any of the cabinets, on an as needed basis, as is the case now.

6. TRANSITIONAL ISSUES.

a. How are issues being addressed in the current structure truly going to be transitioned to a new structure? Should cabinets take on new assignments this year?

The Governance Subcommittee?s recommendations basically call for reorganizing the current governance structure, so it is anticipated that it will be fairly easy to reassign current duties and responsibilities to new councils and cabinets. For example, issues currently being addressed by the Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet will be assigned to the new Amateurism Cabinet. Since the recommendation calls for the representational ?slate to be wiped clean?, the subcommittee is encouraging conferences to appoint some members currently serving in the structure to the new governance bodies so there is a level of continuity. This recommendation anticipates a mixture of old and new representatives serving in the structure. A conversation has already occurred with the Collegiate Commissioners Association regarding this issue, and there was a sense among that group that there will be a natural level of overlap between returning and new members.

b. It would be helpful to see more details regarding the transitional process. From a cabinet standpoint, it would help to have a number of current cabinet members serve immediately in the new structure to help with transitions.

If the Board of Directors uses its emergency legislative authority to adopt the proposed new governance structure at its November 1, 2007, meeting, the plan is to take the next 10 months to address transitional issues so the new structure can be in place by August 2008. While certainly a number of transitional issues will need to be addressed during this 10-month period, it should be noted that the recommended changes really are calling for a reorganization, rather than a whole new governance structure. Therefore, current governance functions and duties are just being reassigned to new locations in the governance structure. For example, issues currently being examined by the Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet will now be addressed by the Amateurism Cabinet. Further, while the representational slates will be wiped clean, those currently serving in the governance structure who would like to continue serving in the new structure are encouraged to talk with their conference offices regarding continuing service. The Governance Subcommittee anticipates a natural level of carryover between those currently serving in the governance structure who wish to remain involved and newly appointed representatives.

7. STAFFING ISSUES.