REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION I MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

GOVERANCE SUBCOMMITTEE

The NCAA Division I Management Council Governance Subcommittee submits the following report from its April 9, 2006, meeting:

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

a. Continued discussion of Action Item No. 1-a from the Governance Subcommittee February 27-28, 2006 report. At the request of a member conference, the Governance Subcommittee reexamined its earlier recommendation to provide the Management Council with four options when casting an initial vote on a proposal, rather than five. Specifically, the subcommittee discussed whether the Management Council should have the option of noting whether a proposal should be sent out for comment with/without support or whether a proposal should just be sent out for comment. After a lengthy discussion, the subcommittee confirmed its original position that the Management Council should be presented with only four voting options (i.e., Send the proposal directly to the Board of Directors; Send the proposal out for comment; Defeat the proposals or Abstain). In confirming its earlier position, the subcommittee indicated a desire to ensure the Management Council’s voting process was easy to apply and simple for the membership to understand. Additionally, the subcommittee noted that publishing the Management Council’s voting totals under the four identified categories should prove the membership with helpful guidance. Last, the subcommittee confirmed that abstentions would not be counted in the voting totals under this process.

b. Perspective from which to evaluate a successful Division I governance model. When charged with examining the Division I governance structure, the Governance Subcommittee identified a three-stepped approach to assist in ensuring a thorough and comprehensive review. Pursuant to this process, the subcommittee first identified principles and desired outcomes to help guide its examination. Then it sought to preliminarily develop other Division I governance models which might help achieve the identified desired outcomes and finally, at this meeting, the subcommittee was ready to grabble with the difficult task of identifying perspectives from which to evaluate the merits of the various governance models. After much discussion and debate, the subcommittee determined that at a minimum a successful governance model should:

(1) Provide the Board of Directors with quality information and helpful guidance.

(2) Allow for the governance substructure and membership to provide meaningful and significant input.

(3) Result in a global examination of issues and enhance communication at all levels regarding the major issues facing Division I, so that the Division I governance structure helps to lead the Division rather than react to events.

(4) Be responsive and able to react to the many issues facing Division I. [Note: Despite the need to be dynamic, the subcommittee acknowledged there will always be a need to establish Ad Hoc groups to respond to select issues quickly.]

c. Next steps. Having identified a perspective from which to evaluate possible Division I governance models, the subcommittee plans to evaluate the current Division I governance structure to gain a better appreciation of its strengths and weaknesses, and to ascertain whether any modifications should be suggested. Additionally, the subcommittee plans to conduct a similar evaluation of the other governance models identified by the subcommittee. Once such evaluations have occurred, the subcommittee plans to share its thoughts and recommendations with the Division I Board of Directors and membership for further discussion and consideration.

Subcommittee chair: Rich Ensor, Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference

Staff Liaisons: S. David Berst, Division I governance

Beth DeBauche, Division I governance