REPORT OF THE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE NCAA DIVISION I MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE?S RECOMMENDATONS TO REORGANIZE THE DIVISION I GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

1. STRUCTURE.

a. Division I Board of Directors. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that there should be no change to the structure of the Division I Board of Directors as that body should retain its primacy in the structure and serve as the division?s principal leadership body. It is the subcommittee?s intention that as a result of its recommendations, the Board will be aided in its role to establish working principles for the division, set the divisional agenda (both the legislative and non-legislative) and examine broad policy initiatives.

b. Division I Presidential Advisory Group. 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 advising the Board as it seeks to lead the division. In making this recommendation, the subcommittee noted that since only 18 of 31 multisport conferences are represented on the Board, the Presidential Advisory Group remains critical to ensuring communication among all conferences at the presidential level.

c. Restructuring of the Management Council. The Governance Subcommittee recommends restructuring the current Management Council by establishing two distinct bodies that will report to the Board of Directors. These bodies will be called the Leadership Council and the Legislative Council.

(1) Leadership Council. 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 both non-legislative and legislative matters. 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. This body will not only receive authority as directed by the Board of Directors to act on a wide array of matters, but it will also be responsible for identifying issues that could impact intercollegiate athletics as a whole. The level and type of advice offered by the Leadership Council will be determined by the nature of issues being examined. It is also anticipated that this forward looking body will help identify legislative proposals that will warrant review by the Board.

True to its name, the Leadership Council 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.

(2) Legislative Council. The Legislative Council, with Board oversight, will serve as the primary legislative body in the Division I governance structure. This body will assume most of the legislative functions currently performed by the 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. The Legislative Council will be responsible for considering and ultimately voting on all legislative proposals being considered in the annual legislative cycle, much like the Management Council does now. It is intended that the Legislative Council will 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 on the broader issues facing the division. The Legislative Council?s action will not be considered final until the conclusion of either the Board?s January or April meetings (as appropriate) to ensure the Board has the opportunity for final review and oversight. It is envisioned that the Board (with advice from the Leadership Council) will identify proposals early in the cycle that will ultimately warrant final Board approval, but it should be noted that the Board will have discretion to review specified proposals at any point designated for legislative review in the cycle.

(3) Size and Composition of the Councils. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that the Leadership Council and the Legislative Council both be limited to 31 members with one representative from each of the 31 multisport conferences. The subcommittee also recommends a system of weighted voting reflective of the current voting balance among conferences in the governance structure.

d. Elimination of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinets. The Governance Subcommittee recom-mends that the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Champion-ships/Competition Cabinet be eliminated and replaced with a series of smaller issue-specific cabinets that have more limited topical jurisdiction than the current cabinets. 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 cabinets.

(1) Cabinets. The following six issue-specific cabinets are being recommended:

? Academics Cabinet.

? Administration Cabinet.

? Amateurism Cabinet.

? Championships/Sports Management Cabinet.

? Recruiting Cabinet.

? Student-Athlete Awards, Benefits and Financial Aid Cabinet.

(2) Size and Composition. The Governance Subcommittee recommends that the new issue-specific cabinets be smaller in size than the current 49 member Championships/Competition Cabinet, and the 42 member Academics/ Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet. The rationale behind this recommendation is that smaller bodies naturally lend themselves to more dialogue and transparency.

The subcommittee, based on membership feedback that championships issues are central to their interaction with their conferences, is recommending that the Championships/Sport Management Cabinet have 31 members to allow for one representative from each of the multisport conferences, and that each of the remaining five other cabinets have 21 members. Of the 21 members, each of the 11 FBS conferences will be represented and the other 10 members will come from among the 20 FCS/Division I conferences on a rotating basis. The conferences will be responsible for developing a rotation schedule.

Further, the subcommittee is recommending that whenever 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, subcommittee work is not always thoroughly reviewed and vetted by the larger cabinets or councils.

[NOTE: See Attachment for Proposed Division I Governance Structure Chart.]

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 changes should be easily understood by the membership and necessary for the efficient management of Division I. Accordingly, the subcommittee is recommending a legislative cycle, which is not significantly different than the current Division I cycle.

The difference 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 acts on every proposal receiving Management Council support. The subcommittee is recommending that the Board remain empowered to oversee all legislative actions but that the Board only be required to take action on those proposals which it determines require further review.

Under the proposed change, the Legislative Council will meet at the beginning of the NCAA Convention to formally consider legislation, similar to the process used by the current Management Council. The Legislative Council will have three options when considering proposals. Those options would be:

u Adopt the proposal upon initial review ? (Category 1);

u Send the proposal out for additional membership comment ? (Category 2); and

u Defeat the proposal ? (Category 3).

The Board of Directors will then receive a report from the Legislative Council in which the council will list those proposals which were supported upon initial review (Category 1) and those proposals which the Legislative Council defeated (Category 3). It is not envisioned that the Board will chose to review every proposal listed in Categories 1 and 3, but that the Board, with the advice and assistance of the Leadership Council, will opt to review select proposals. The Board?s action in January will be generally anticipated by the membership as it is envisioned that the Board will identify proposals early in the legislative cycle, which it wants to review. In the event the Board determines presidential review is necessary, the Board will be empowered to seek additional feedback from the substructure or to take action itself. No legislative action by the Legislative Council will be considered final until after the conclusion of the Board meeting. The recommendation is intended to ensure that the Board has proper legislative oversight and authority necessary to examine any proposal in the annual legislative cycle.

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 is 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 there are opportunities for growth in leadership positions. 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, yet eventually the subcommittee moved away from the concept after hearing membership concerns. [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 at the same time providing the conferences with some flexibility in the appointment process. The Governance Subcommittee is recommending 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. 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.

Further, the subcommittee is recommending that the Football Bowl Subdivision will 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).

Last, the subcommittee recommends that the terms of conference representatives on the various governance bodies rotate at the same time as well as the terms of all representatives within a subdivision.

b. Positional Requirements.

While the Governance Subcommittee is not recommending specific minimum percentages with regard to positional representation, 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 that 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. Additionally, in July 2007, 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 by ensuring there are adequate levels of representation before approving cabinet and council appointments.

c. Voting Process.

The Governance Subcommittee recommends that there be weighted voting on the Legislative and Leadership Councils and the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet that is consistent with the current voting balance among conferences in the Division I governance structure. The subcommittee is not recommending weighted voting for the other remaining cabinets since not all conferences are represented on the smaller cabinets with the 11 FBS conferences represented on all five cabinets and the 20 remaining conferences represented on no fewer than two but no more than three cabinets at any one time.

d. Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

Given the importance of the student-athlete voice in the Division I governance structure, the Governance Subcommittee is recommending that the chair or vice chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee serve on either the Leadership Council or the Legislative Council, as non-voting members. Further, the subcommittee is recommending that each of the cabinets be assigned one representative from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

4. TIMELINE AND TRANSITION.

a. Timeline.

Since the Governance Subcommittee first received its charge from the Board of Directors in April 2005 to examine the Division I governance structure, the group has met 13 times to consider the issues, and throughout this period, the subcommittee has provided updates to and sought feedback from numerous constituent groups.