DIVISION I GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE CONTINUING EXAMINATION OF THE DIVISION I GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

SECOND WHITE PAPER

I. BACKGROUND.

At its April 2005 meeting, the Division I Board of Directors requested that the Governance Subcommittee of the Management Council expand its ongoing examination of the overall Division I governance structure to determine whether the Management Council and Board of Directors’ duties could be better defined and more effective ways of managing the division’s governance process could be found. The subcommittee spent the course of the past 16 months examining this charge.

Throughout its examination, the subcommittee focused on the themes of enhancing effectiveness, efficiency and engagement, all of which are appropriate byproducts of the subcommittee’s work, yet this focus did not seem to result in satisfactory recommendations. Whether it was just being too close to the issues or the subtle complexities of the situation, the subcommittee at its April 2006 meeting acknowledged it was having difficulty identifying possible solutions because it was struggling with truly appreciating the problems associated with the current governance structure.

Understanding the challenges facing the Governance Subcommittee as it continued its examination, a number of commissioners expressed interest in forming a CCA Governance Working Group to assist with this review. Based on the commissioners’ desire to get involved, the CCA Working Group was invited to participate in the Governance Subcommittee’s August 8 – 9, 2006, meeting, the ultimate goal of which was to help further define the issues and then develop preliminary recommendations regarding possible changes to the current governance structure.

II. FURTHER DEFINING THE ISSUES.

To assist the Governance Subcommittee and the CCA Governance Working Group in better appreciating the issues that prompted the Board of Directors’ request for this governance examination, the group asked the NCAA President to share his impressions.

Based on this discussion, the group concluded that since the NCAA restructured its governance process in 1997, the Board of Directors’ leadership role has continued to expand. As a result of this expanding role, the Board is currently engaged in a wide variety of issues reflective of the complex world of Division I intercollegiate athletics. Despite the complexity of these issues, this 18-member Board made up of university/college presidents/chancellors, none of whom profess to be experts in intercollegiate athletics, has appeared to rely less and less on the advice and counsel from the athletics administrators and faculty members serving in the governance structure.

The reasons for the Board of Directors' lack of reliance on the substructure are subtle and complex and while important for the group to appreciate, are not the primary focus of this paper. Rather, what is the primary focus is the fact that the Board of Directors’ reluctance to rely on the substructure has the potential to impact the whole of the Division I governance structure. If the Board does not get the best advice it can from the substructure, that could result in the potential for the Board to over-manage and under-lead.

III. SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM.

While the overall situation prompting this governance review has many nuances, the problems that need to be addressed are fairly straight-forward. Specifically, if the Board of Directors receives only general voting data from the Management Council, it is difficult for the Board to feel confident that consequential discussion is informing those votes. Additionally, if the Board is asked to consider a large number of legislative proposals as a result of the Management Council’s actions and there is a short period of time between meetings, little opportunity exists for the Board to distinguish the significant from the routine or to allow for reflection on those matters that are important. Finally, if communication between the Management Council and the Board is essentially limited to the legislative agenda, the Board may question whether the Management Council is addressing the most significant policy issues facing Division I in a meaningful way.

The factors described above also have contributed to or enabled concerns on the part of some individuals at the operating level of intercollegiate athletics. Specifically, it is envisioned that this situation could result in the establishment of a “vicious circle” of sorts whereby, if the Management Council's work is not substantive, the Board will not pay attention to the Management Council. In that event, leaders from the operating level of athletics will not want to serve on the council, which in turn could result in the Board not getting input from the leaders of intercollegiate athletics. If that happens, the Board will be under-informed on important matters and will act, as it must, but it will not have the information that it needs for the decisions that must be made.

NOTE: For a more detailed assessment of the current Division I governance situation, please see Appendix A.

IV. OBJECTIVES BEHIND SUGGESTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT GOVERNANCE PROCESS.

Based on the group’s identification of the problems and the current appreciation of the governance situation, it was able to succinctly identify objectives for its ongoing work. An appreciation of those objectives, which are set forth below, is essential to assessing the suggested modifications set forth in Section V of this paper.

a. OBJECTIVES AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS LEVEL.

1. Preserve the final decision-making role of the Board.

2. Strengthen the foundation for the Board’s policy setting role.

3. Ensure high quality input/advice from other levels of the NCAA structure.

4. Reduce the legislative load on the Board.

5. Reduce/eliminate minutiae where possible.

b. OBJECTIVES AT LEVELS BELOW THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

1. Develop a national dialog within the full membership on consequential issues facing Division I and use representative governance bodies to develop legislation and discuss policy issues.

2. Achieve a significant contributing role for the membership in decisions that set the direction of the Association.

3. Identify a delegated agenda from the Board on which the Management Council level (or its successor) takes action for the Association.

4. Ensure that governance matters are addressed at the appropriate level in the substructure so that the Board and the Management Council (or its successor) are not tied down addressing minutiae.

5. Attract the right people to serve (experience, maturity, respect, and judgment) for meaningful work.

6. Regain membership trust that the operating level of intercollegiate athletics has a voice in consequential decisions within the Association.

7. Provide for minimum representational (functional, gender, ethnicity) distribution in some defined sense overall within the governance structure, but not necessarily on each council, cabinet, or committee.

V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT DIVISION I GOVERNANCE PROCESS.

Based on the group’s clarification of its charge, the discussion of the consensus statements developed by the CCA Governance Working Group (Attached as Appendix B) and the identification of objectives for its work, the group entered into a brainstorming session and developed what will be referred to, for the sake of this paper, as Model Six. This model is incomplete in some details, especially regarding numbers of representatives in the different proposed governance bodies, but what can be shared are consensus concepts regarding both goals and the shape of the structure, which together give the reader a clear model that responds to the work and suggestions to date.

Model Six. Eliminate the current Division I Management Council and in its stead, establish a Leadership Council, which would serve as more of a leadership/policy body rather than a legislative body. Additionally, establish a separate Legislative Council, which would consider (as a subservient group to the Leadership Council) all proposals in the Division I structure. Last, replace the two current cabinets with a number of smaller issues specific cabinets. (See Attachment B)

Specifically, pursuant to this model, the Board of Directors would remain intact as the primary leadership body in Division I, along with the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Committee. It is envisioned that under this model, the Board would delegate much of its current jurisdiction pertaining to the management of Division I and the adoption of most legislation to the council level so the Board could focus on establishing working principles for the division, setting the divisional agenda and examining broad policy initiatives. Under this model, the Board would be responsible for formally determining and articulating its plan for the delegation of authority to ensure that roles and expectations are clearly understood.

As noted, this model calls for the elimination of the Management Council and in its stead, a Leadership Council would be established to help assist the Board in leading the division. This body would not only receive authority from the Board of Directors to act on a wide array of matters important to the leadership of Division I, but it would also be responsible for identifying issues for the Division I agenda. Additionally, some of the Management Council’s current jurisdiction, such as receipt of select association-wide committee reports, would be retained.

Further, the Leadership Council should maintain the current voting ratios among the conferences, and true to its name, should be populated by a diverse group of the leaders in the division, with the conferences being asked to commit to providing such leadership representatives. Because a smaller governance body representing the 31 multisport conferences would lend itself to better dialog, the Leadership Council should be smaller in size than the current Management Council. A Leadership Council of 31 with one representative per conference and weighted voting would do this ideally but more discussion of actual numbers is appropriate.

To assist the Leadership Council, a Legislative Council would also be established. This council would be the primary legislative body in the Division I governance structure and would actually vote on the legislative proposals. It would play a legislative role similar to that of the current Management Council in reviewing and considering legislation, and it would assume the current functions of both the Legislative Review Subcommittee and the Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee. The group discussed a number of ideas about how the Legislative Council should interface with the Leadership Council and the Board of Directors regarding legislation and suggested that the Board (and possibly the Leadership Council) should retain the authority to act on major legislative items in addition to reserving the authority to act on any legislation when it has a compelling reason. Further, it would be appropriate for the Board to consider delegating responsibility for final action on legislation that does not have significant impact on Division I policy or principles. Yet it should be noted that many of the details still have to be addressed regarding the legislative process before a final recommendation is presented. It is anticipated that the Legislative Council would include at least one representative from each of the 31 Division I multisport conferences with weighted voting and that its members would have a high level of legislative knowledge. It is tentatively suggested that the Legislative Council’s duties would include:

· Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of proposed legislation;

· Developing educational materials;

· Developing a voting order chart;

· Issuing interpretations; and

· Considering waivers of legislation;

· Voting on legislation (*Details still to be determined); and

· Developing legislative consent packages for possible consideration by the Leadership Council and/or the Board of Directors (*Details still to be determined).

Additionally, under this model, the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet would be eliminated and replaced with a series of smaller cabinets with more limited topical jurisdiction. [Note: The group tentatively suggested that each of these cabinets have 21 representatives with 11 representatives coming from each of the current Division I-A conferences and the other 10 representatives coming from the other 20 Division I-AA/I-AAA conferences. This structure would ensure that each Division I-AA/I-AAA conference would have a representative serving on three of the six suggested cabinets plus the two councils.] The intent behind this recommendation is that small cabinets with more limited jurisdiction would be better able to provide expertise on issues and be more nimble than the larger cabinets. The cabinets would all be of equal stature and size within the structure. While the discussion regarding the topical jurisdiction of the smaller cabinets was preliminary in nature, the following topical areas were tentatively identified:

Governance/Administration Cabinet. – The Governance/Administrative Cabinet, true to its name, would be primarily responsible for addressing the governance and 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:

· Division I governance issues;

· Division I membership standards;

· Committee on Athletics Certification; and

· All committee selections.

Academics Cabinet. – The Academics Cabinet would assume many of the functions currently performed by the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet with regard to academics, plus it would assume jurisdiction over all academic matters currently addressed elsewhere in the substructure. Cabinet duties would include:

· Overseeing academic research and policies;

· Establishing, managing and monitoring eligibility standards;

· Administering academic waivers; and

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

Recruiting and Pre-enrollment Issues. – This cabinet would assume responsibility over issues pertaining to the recruitment of prospective student-athletes and other pre enrollment activities. The cabinet duties would include:

· Bylaw 13 matters;

· Bylaw 11 issues; and

· Bylaw 12 - pre enrollment inducements.

Championships/Sports Management Cabinet. – The Championships/Sports Management Cabinet would retain much of the jurisdiction of the current Championships/Competition Cabinet except for issues pertaining to committee selections, which would be assigned to the Governance/Administration Cabinet.

Student-Athlete Benefits Cabinet. – This cabinet would be charged with addressing the many issues that arise in the areas of financial aid and awards and benefits. Accordingly, this cabinet’s jurisdiction would include:

· Bylaw 15 matters; and

· Bylaw 16 issues.

Amateurism Cabinet. – True to its name, this cabinet would assume jurisdiction over amateurism issues not addressed elsewhere in the structure, including oversight of issues pertaining to the Amateurism Clearinghouse.

Finally, it should be noted that to help ensure that not only leaders in Division I are serving in the governance structure, but that the structure is helping to grow more leaders, this model recommends that the current legislatively proscribed positional requirements be eliminated and the diversity requirements be amended to apply in the aggregate across the council and cabinet levels rather than applied to each body independently.

VI. TIMELINE.

While the Division I governance structure is not in a state of crisis, there are signs that the structure is not operating as effectively as was envisioned at the time of restructuring due in large measure to the Board’s lack of reliance on the substructure. Accordingly, close to 10 years after restructuring, the time appears right to consider making substantial changes to the structure so that it will serve the division into the future. This examination and desire for change should not be viewed as a weakness, rather it should be viewed as a sign the division and structure are healthy enough to withstand change and thrive, not dissimilar to the transition the division underwent when it successfully moved from a system of one-school/one-vote to a representative form of governance.

Given that the group acknowledged that substantial changes may be required, the group has established a generous but realistic timeframe for its work to ensure adequate time to properly address all the issues and to hear from the membership.

Specifically, it is anticipated that throughout the late summer and early fall of 2006 the group will further hone its preliminary recommendations and fill in some of the necessary details. Thereafter, feedback will be sought from key membership groups. Based on this membership feedback, the group then plans to formulate its final recommendations by the spring of 2007 so that information can be shared with conferences for discussion at annual spring meetings. Once the information and recommendations are properly vetted by the membership, it is anticipated that the final recommendations will be sent to the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors at the October 2007 meetings.

VII. GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE AND CCA WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.

This paper is the result of the combined efforts of the Division I Management Council Governance Subcommittee and the CCA Governance Working Group. Members that participated in the August 8 – 9, 2006, meeting were:

Britton Banowsky – Conference USA (Governance Subcommittee and CCA Group)

Carolyn Campbell-McGovern – Ivy Group (Governance Subcommittee)

Rich Ensor (Chair) – Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (Governance Subcommittee and CCA Group)

Jack Evans – University of North Carolina (Governance Subcommittee)

Tom Hansen – Pacific 10 Conference (CCA Group)

Carolyn Henry – Mountain West Conference (Governance Subcommittee)

Jeff Orleans – Ivy Group (CCA Group)

Dell Robinson – Mid American Conference (Governance Subcommittee)

Greg Sankey – Southeastern Conference (CCA Group)

Patty Viverito – Missouri Valley Conference (CCA Group)

Myles Brand – NCAA President

Staff liaisons:

S. David Berst – Vice President for Division I

Beth DeBauche – Director of Division I

Melissa Lehman – Governance Intern

Appendix A

ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITUATION.

During its August 8-9, 2006, meeting, the Governance Subcommittee and the CCA Governance Working Group offered a number of general comments about the reasons for the Board of Directors’ apparent lack of reliance on the governance substructure. The group’s comments are organized into the three categories: concerns about the level of experience and leadership serving on the governance bodies, weaknesses with the governance structure, and communication challenges between the substructure, Management Council and Board of Directors. (Please note that while these comments are listed under one of three categories, many of these comments are applicable in more than one category.)

1. CONCERNS ABOUT THE PERCEIVED LACK OF EXPERIENCE AND LEADERSHIP SERVING IN THE GOVERNANCE SUBSTRUCTURE.

(a) History of Service by Divisional Leaders. With the establishment of a new Division I governance structure in 1997, many leaders in the division were appointed to serve on the Management Council and there was perceived status associated with service. As the membership became more comfortable with the new governance system and dealing with legislative matters became more routine, veteran athletics administrators’ interest in serving on the Council appeared to dissipate (or term limits prevented repeat terms of experienced legislators) and representatives in some instances were replaced by those with less experience. Clearly, this statement represents a broad generalization as the 31 multisport conferences all have different approaches to selecting Management Council representatives and leaders in the division still serve on the Council, yet this perception that some level of experience and leadership has been lost with time is important to note as this perception has potential to impact the Board’s reliance on the Council.

(b) Status Associated with Management Council Service. As the perception regarding the level of experience and leadership on the Management Council has changed, so arguably has the perceived status associated with serving on the Council. In some conferences, members vie for the opportunity to serve on the Council, where as in others, it is difficult to identify qualified members who want to serve. Asserted reasons for people being reluctant to serve include the time commitment, travel demands associated with service, dissatisfaction with the governance process and meeting formats.

(c) Positional and Diversity Requirements. While the Division I membership appears committed to developing new leaders by providing professional development opportunities through governance service, the current positional and diversity requirements add to the challenges of appointing experienced leaders to the Management Council; especially when tied to the limited number of seats at the Management Council level. Conferences with only one representative on a governance body are particularly challenged to appoint experienced representatives while also seeking to satisfy positional and diversity requirements.

(d) Term Limits. The current legislated term limits for representatives serving on the Management Council and in the rest of the substructure arguably exacerbate the challenge of trying to appoint experienced leaders to serve in the governance structure.

2. CURRENT STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES.

(a) Value of Intraconference Governance Systems. With time, most multisport conferences have honed their procedures for educating their membership about governance issues and for providing legislative feedback. Many conferences have developed systems whereby, representatives from each member institution are asked to discuss pending NCAA legislative proposals and provide institutional positions on legislation. Conferences view these processes as essential to keeping their conference membership interested in governance activities and these processes are viewed as healthy byproducts of restructuring.

(b) Well-informed Management Council. As a result of the fact many conferences have highly developed processes for gathering comments and votes on proposals, the majority of Management Council representatives report they feel well informed about legislative proposals prior to being asked to vote on legislation at the Management Council meetings. As a result of intraconference preparation, by the time Management Council representatives are asked to vote on proposals at the Council meetings, they do not feel a need for further discussion and dialog. The lack of debate and pre-determined voting positions lead the Council to be perceived as a vote gathering body rather than a legislative body capable of crafting legislation based on national debate regarding policy issues.

(c) Size of Management Council. While the decision to establish a 34-person Management Council, which was ultimately expanded to 49 members, was carefully crafted to reflect the political landscape of the division and to provide participation opportunities, the Management Council’s large size appears to inhibit lively debate and discussion at meetings. A desire to maintain both the current number of participation opportunities and the voting ratios may run counter to the goal of encouraging more dialog at the Management Council meetings, yet the situation may present an “either or” scenario.

(d) Management Council Agendas. Under the current governance structure, the Management Council appears more engaged in managing the business of Division I than it does in helping to lead the division. In that light, Management Council agendas are primarily focused on the Council’s legislatively prescribed business rather than on policy and issues development. Accordingly, Management Council reports are often not that instructive to the Board of Directors as the reports focus on issues of little importance to the Board as it seeks to lead the division.

(e) Volume of Legislation. The volume of legislation in Division I taxes the governance structure in a variety of ways, yet any discussion regarding placing restrictions on the submission of legislation has to be balanced with the membership’s desire in a representative governance structure for access and impact on legislative proposals. This is a delicate balance. Additionally, it should be noted that in a typical year, almost one-half of the legislative proposals considered in the annual legislative cycle are a byproduct of the governance substructure.

(f) Focus on Legislation. At present, the Management Council’s primary focus appears to be the consideration of legislation, which precludes the Management Council from truly being innovative in leading the Division. Further, this focus does not seem to be the Board’s primary focus, which adds to the sense of disconnect between the two governance bodies. The Division needs a structure that does the technical work while still providing a capacity for leadership.

(g) Delegation. The Board of Directors has not delegated significant responsibilities down to the Management Council and as a result, the Board is overloaded and the Management Council is not really challenged to take ultimate responsibility anywhere.

(h) Continued Involvement of Ad Hoc Groups. Over the past few years, the establishment of Ad Hoc groups as a supplement to the Division I governance structure has become more prevalent. While some in the membership still view the use of these Ad Hoc groups as a negative development and some members of the Management Council and cabinets feel bypassed from policy formulation, these groups can bring value to the structure serving as catalytic bodies to infuse new ideas into the structure in a timely fashion. It is anticipated that Ad Hoc groups will continue to be used as a supplement to the governance structure, not in lieu of it, regardless of any suggested changes to the Division I governance structure.

(i) Current Incorporation of Ad Hoc Groups into the Governance Structure. At present, many of these Ad Hoc groups report directly to the Board of Directors rather than into the governance substructure, due in part to the lack of confidence in the substructure. If the level of confidence in the substructure were enhanced and the Ad Hoc groups reported to the Management Council (when appropriate) rather than directly to the Board of Directors, it is anticipated the level of reliance on the substructure would increase.

(j) Ad Hoc groups always should include individuals already serving in the structure and members of the structure along with conferences should be solicited for suggestions regarding potential group members. The current approach to populating these groups does not provide wide breadth of viewpoints or experiences that could be obtained from broader solicitation of nominees from within the structure and does not result in successfully melding outside viewpoints with involvement of the ongoing and constitutionally responsible governance bodies. Such involvement would become more feasible if the leadership profile of Council members was enhanced.

(k) Lack of Attention at the Cabinet and Committee Levels. The Division I membership appears to focus its governance attention at the Management Council and Board of Directors levels and pays less attention to the work of the cabinets and the committees. Accordingly, despite the fact a great deal of important work is conducted by the substructure below the Management Council level, much of this work goes relatively unnoticed by the majority of the membership and the Board of Directors. This situation is compounded by the fact the cabinets conduct much of their work at the subcommittee level. Accordingly, there is a sense that the work of cabinets and committees lacks transparency, which in turn hinders the sense of confidence in and communication with the substructure.

(l) Overdeveloped Substructure. The governance substructure appears to include too many committees, which have potential to lead to overlap, inefficiency and confusion. Such an overdeveloped structure runs counter to establishing clear and open lines of communication and confidence in the substructure.

3. COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES.

(a) The Legislative Process Inhibits Dialog. Most conferences follow some level of conference directed voting at the Management Council, although the reasons for them doing so may vary from conference to conference. This allows representatives of institutions to feel they are participating in a representative legislative process and in determining whether specific proposals in which they are interested are adopted. The result is that Management Council members have participated in a number of discussions of each legislative proposal prior to any Management Council meeting, on the campus and in conference meetings, and are reluctant to repeat those discussions, particularly since (in most cases) their votes cannot be changed by points made during a review of the proposals. The Management Council's limited discussion of the proposals, however, results in the Board of Directors not being provided a full, detailed reflection and understanding of the Management Council's viewpoints regarding legislative issues.

(b) Required Legislative Knowledge Impedes Discussion. The Management Council’s focus on legislation arguably limits the level of participation at meetings. The complexities and nuances of legislation require representatives to have a keen level of legislative knowledge, which understandably is not shared by all Management Council members. Whether they are leaders in the field or not, Council members lacking in legislative expertise may not feel comfortable engaging in legislative conversations or asking questions; still others just may not be interested in the detailed nature of the conversations.

(c) Lack of National Dialog and Focus. Although the CCA and other groups such as the Division I-A Athletics Directors Association and the FARA have periodic in-person meetings, and the Division I-A commissioners have conference calls prior to the quarterly governance meetings as do the Division I-AA/I-AAA commissioners and Management Council representatives, there do not appear to be many opportunities or forums for the broader Division I membership to engage in national conversations about governance issues outside of the formal governance structure. This lack of national dialog in preparation for Management Council meetings appears to result in Management Council members being more focused on “local politics” rather than on the bigger whole of Division I intercollegiate athletics.

Appendix B

CCA Governance Group Interim Report

Revised 9/07/06

The members of the group are: Britton Banowsky (C-USA), Richard Ensor (MAAC), Tom Hansen (PAC-10), Jeff Orleans (Ivy League), Greg Sankey (SEC), and Patty Viverito (MVC). The group met in person and by conference call on multiple occasions, including an in-person meeting with Dr. Myles Brand, NCAA staff, and members of the Division I Governance Subcommittee.

The consensus positions of the group are:

1. Role of the Board of Directors (The “Board”).

· The Board is clearly the ultimate authority on matters affecting Division I and it should fully discharge its fiduciary responsibility and take primary leadership on planning and all major policy items.

· The Board should formally act on all major legislative proposals and reserve the right to act on any legislative proposal when it finds a compelling reason to change the action of bodies to whom it has delegated authority for doing so.

· The Board should delegate authority to the subordinate bodies within the governance structure to manage policy items and legislative proposals, which are not considered major in nature.

· A clearly articulated delegation should be developed and communicated by the Board.

· The Board should seek and receive advice and recommendations from within the governance structure on major policy items and proposed legislation.

2. Use of Presidential and Special Task Forces.

· It is understood that presidential and special task forces will be necessary to act on matters requiring prompt action or which require particular leadership or expertise.

· In those cases, persons within the governance structure should be included on these special groups along with other individuals outside the structure with appropriate expertise. Every effort should be made to solicit suggestions for individuals to serve from the Conferences.

3. Role of I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group.

· Those conferences without Board representation should continue to be afforded an opportunity to provide input to the Board through this body on matters affecting Division I and the I-AA and I-AAA subdivisions.

· There is consensus among I-AA and I-AAA that each conference should be represented on the Board, however, there is recognition that such a policy would not be supported across Division I.

4. Role of the Management Council (The “Council”).

· The Council should be retained, but restructured, strengthened and empowered. Further, it is suggested that it be renamed (the “Leadership Council”) to make clear what contribution the Division I membership expects from this body.

· Consistent with the statements above, the Council should receive delegation of authority from the Board to act on policy items and legislative proposals in a wide range of specified categories and should provide advice and recommendations to the Board on all other policy items.

· It is both essential and possible to improve the quality and timeliness of the work product and communication provided by the governance structure to the Board. These goals may be achieved through enhanced leadership emphasis and focus within the Council membership and a restructured legislative role in the governance structure.

· The Council should be reduced in size to provide an atmosphere conducive to its members engaging in meaningful discussion of policy matters.

5. Legislative Activity.

· Every effort should be made to improve the legislative process and reduce the volume of legislative activity managed by the Council. The Council should focus on issues delegated to it by the Board and of greater significance to the Association whether those issues arise in the normal legislative process, are requested by the Board, or are raised on the Council’s own initiative.

· It is suggested that the primary legislative function of the Council be delegated to a new legislative body (the “Legislative Council”), which would be responsible for initially reviewing and acting on all legislative proposals submitted by the membership and initiated within the governance structure (i.e., cabinets and committees).

· The Legislative Council would also perform the functions currently performed by the Legislative Review Committee.

6. Cabinets.

· With the goal of improving the quality of the information communicated to the Council and Board, consideration should be given to reforming the current cabinets so that a structure exists to fully develop policy background and recommendations in all important topical policy areas.

· It is suggested that cabinets be developed to address the following areas:

· Sports Management (including Championships);

· Academics (including eligibility);

· Recruiting (defined broadly);

· Amateurism;

· Student-Athlete Benefits (including financial aid); and

· Governance and Membership.

· These cabinets would be smaller in size and generally more targeted in scope than the current cabinets, incorporating much of the work currently managed by cabinets and council subcommittees.

7. Substructure.

· Every effort should be made to refine, consolidate and streamline the governance substructure (i.e., Committees) in order to avoid superfluous and redundant activities and create greater efficiencies.

· Only committees which are serving an important purpose should be retained and only if the activities are not more effectively consolidated into another committee or cabinet.

8. Conference Representation/Size and Composition.

· It is important that the Division I governance system is a system accessed through Conference representation and complimentary to Conference governance activities.

· It is also important to maintain the current Conference and subdivisional compositional directives and voting ratios as previously agreed to and as set forth in the NCAA Bylaws as the current balance is considered constructive and a discussion of change would be politically counter-productive.

· It is understood, however, that in order to achieve a higher quality of discussion and work product, a reduction in the number of representatives should be considered with a weighted voting system.

· It is proposed that the composition of the groups and their representatives in the system be developed as follows:

Leadership Council - Total Number: 31.

Composition: A representative from each Conference with weighted voting to reflect current conference and subdivisional balance.

Legislative Council - Total Number: 31.

Composition: A representative from each Conference with weighted voting to reflect current conference and subdivisional balance.

Cabinets - Total Number on each: 21.

Composition: A representative from each I-A conference on each cabinet and 10 from I-AA/I-AAA. Note: Each I-AA and I-AAA conference would be guaranteed a representative on three of the six cabinets.

9. Positional and Diversity Requirements/Term Limits.

· There shall be no requirements that the structure incorporate individuals with certain institutional or conference positions.

· There shall be no requirement that either the Council, the Legislative Council or a particular Cabinet possess a prescribed level of diversity, however, the representatives on the Councils and Cabinets in the aggregate should meet at least the current ethnic and gender diversity goals.

· There shall be reasonable term limits.