REPORT OF THE DIVISION I MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION I MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE

The NCAA Division I Management Council Governance Subcommittee submits the following report from its December 12 – 13, 2006, meeting:

· INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

a. The Governance Subcommittee’s presentation to the Management Council at its October 16, 2006, meeting. The subcommittee members were provided an opportunity to share their assessment of the Management Council’s reaction to the subcommittee’s October 16, 2006, presentation. During this review it was noted that the Management Council appeared generally supportive of the subcommittee’s preliminary recommendations to modify the current Division I governance structure but select members expressed concerns regarding two general issues set forth below:

(1) Structural relationship between the proposed new Leadership Council and the Legislative Council. At its August 8-9 meeting, the subcommittee preliminarily recommended that the current Division I Management Council be eliminated and replaced by a Leadership Council, which would serve as a leadership/policy body and a Legislative Council, which would consider all the proposals in the annual legislative cycle. Under this preliminary recommendation the Legislative Council was considered subservient to the Leadership Council. As a result of questions raised at the October Management Council meeting regarding this subservient relationship, the subcommittee reexamined its structural model and determined that the Legislative and Leadership Councils should be on equal footing in the governance structure to ensure that the process for reviewing and adopting legislation is viewed as appropriately significant by the membership.

(2) Minimum representational requirements. The Governance Subcommittee also preliminarily recommended that the current legislatively prescribed representational requirements be applied in the aggregate across the council and cabinet levels rather than as now applied to the Management Council and the two cabinets independently. The subcommittee discussed this preliminary recommendation at length and noted that the wording of the White Paper developed after the August meeting was somewhat confusing and should be clarified as it did not adequately convey the subcommittee’s commitment to diversity. Specifically, the subcommittee recommended that the White Paper be modified as follows:

To ensure that the subcommittee’s objective of attracting “the right people to serve (in terms of experience, maturity, respect, judgment and diversity) for meaningful work,” the current legislatively prescribed compositional requirements for the Division I Management Council and Division I Cabinets shall be combined and applied in the aggregate to the councils and cabinets as a minimum starting point, from which the Board of Directors would oversee the appointment process for both councils and the six cabinets with the goal of further expanding governance service opportunities for ethnic minorities and persons of each gender. As part of its oversight function, the Board shall strive to ensure those serving in the Division I governance structure represent a variety of perspectives and viewpoints reflective of their different professional positions and backgrounds. The new Division I governance structure shall celebrate the diversity of the Division I membership and shall provide interested administrators and academicians with leadership and growth opportunities.

b. Legislative Process. Having considered the Management Council members’ comments, the subcommittee moved on to examine what the legislative process should look like under a new governance structure. During the course of this examination the subcommittee members noted that after years of tinkering with the current legislative process, it seems to work fairly well; therefore, any recommended changes should be easily understood by the membership and necessary for the efficient management of Division I. Accordingly, the subcommittee developed the following preliminary legislative model:

Conferences and the governance structure submit legislative concepts by July 15.

Notes:

· The subcommittee discussed whether all proposals should be completely drafted or whether general concepts should be submitted along with the bylaw citations, a description of the problem to be solved, reasoning and the budget impact. The subcommittee recommended that legislative sponsors continue to draft all legislative proposals but acknowledged that the subcommittee should continue to examine whether there may be merit to drafting proposed legislation later on in the cycle.

· This legislative model envisions that the Board of Directors and the Leadership Council would help set the Division I agenda by suggesting legislative concepts that would be developed by the governance substructure. Additionally, the Legislative Council, governance substructure and the conferences would be permitted to propose legislation, as is currently the case.

The six designated cabinets would meet in the early fall, similar to the timeframe in which the cabinets currently meet.

Notes:

· Given that it is recommended that there be six issue-specific cabinets, it is anticipated that it will 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 possible that some cabinets will meet less frequently than others.

· Further, given that the cabinets will be smaller in size than the current cabinets, (i.e., 21 members) it is recommended that the bodies work as a cabinet of the whole rather than functioning as a series of subcommittees.

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

· Proposals whether developed by the governance substructure or by conferences shall be assigned to at least one cabinet for review prior to being examined by the Legislative Council.

Legislative Council will 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 shall 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 cycle.

· Similar to the role LRS currently performs the Legislative Council will review proposals to identify the implications and ramifications of the legislation in addition to trying to identify possible interpretative issues.

· On the second day of the meeting the Legislative Council will offer its preliminary recommendations regarding whether a proposals should be considered in one of three categories upon initial consideration:

ü Adoption based on Initial Consideration. (Category 1)

ü Out for comment and additional consideration by the Division I membership and governance structure. (Category 2)

ü Defeat. (Category 3)

· The subcommittee discussed that it may be helpful if the Legislative Council could consolidate and reconcile similar proposals at this meeting, but the group acknowledged it may be too early in the legislative process for the Council to be able to perform that task.

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

Note:

· This model assumes that Legislative Council will be instructive with its comments and suggest legislative modifications which would possibly allow the Council to ultimately support a proposal.

The Leadership Council would meet in mid November to review the Legislative Council’s preliminary recommendations and offer its advice and comments to the Board.

Note:

· Since the Legislative Council and the Leadership Council are of equal status in the governance structure, the Leadership Council would not review the Legislative Council’s action as a way to override their recommendations; rather the Leadership Council would review the recommendations to provide the Board with a different perspective and additional advice regarding the bigger legislative concepts being considered in the annual legislative cycle.

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

Notes:

· The subcommittee discussed the importance of allowing the cabinets, Legislative Council and Leadership Council all to review the legislative proposals in the cycle and wanted to ensure that there was not too much compaction in the meeting schedules. Accordingly, the subcommittee recommended moving the publication date for the Division I Official Notice from November 15 to December 1.

· The subcommittee members concluded based on their own experience that publishing the Division I Official Notice by December 1 would still provide the membership with sufficient time to get ready for the initial consideration of legislation in January.

· This model envisions that the comments and suggestions from both the Legislative Council and the Leadership Council will be instructive to the Division I membership as it prepares for the initial consideration of legislation.

· This model also envisions that the Division I membership will be instructive to the Legislative Council as it seeks to take formal action on legislation at its January meeting.

The Legislative Council, Leadership Council and Board of Directors will meet at the annual NCAA Convention.

The Legislative Council will have a two day meeting at the beginning of the NCAA Convention, perhaps on Wednesday and Thursday, to formally consider legislation.

Notes:

· The Legislative Council will have three options when considering proposals. Those options are:

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.

· The Legislative Council’s actions will be considered final and shall be reported to the Board of Directors as informational items, with the Board receiving legislative reports based on the three categories listed above. The Board shall have the authority to remove proposals from any one of the three categories for further review and discussion.

At present, this legislative model does not envision that a Legislative Forum will be conducted at the annual NCAA Convention as an additional avenue for membership dialog on legislative issues.

The Leadership Council will meet subsequent to the Legislative Council, perhaps on Friday or Saturday, to review the Legislative Council’s actions and provide comments and advice to the Board of Directors. As was the case at its November meeting, the Leadership Council’s actions will be aimed at providing counsel to the Board and not to override or “second guess” the Legislative Council’s work. Specifically, it is anticipated that the Leadership Council would provide advice to the Board regarding whether a proposal which was defeated or adopted by the Legislative Council should receive special review and examination.

Notes:

· It is anticipated that this meeting will be relatively short, lasting only one day.

· It is also envisioned that the Leadership Council will generally agree with the Legislative Council’s actions and will only provide advice and comment on a select group of proposals where it thinks the Board of Directors may benefit from requesting additional review and examination.

At its January meeting, the Board of Directors would receive a report of the Legislative Council’s actions along with a brief report providing advice from the Leadership Council. The Legislative Council’s actions in adopting and defeating proposals will be considered final unless the Board removes a proposal from a report for further review and consideration.

Subsequent to the 60-day comment period, in late March or earlier April, the Legislative Council would meet to consider those proposals remaining in the annual legislative cycle.

Note:

· In considering those proposals for the second time the Legislative Council will have the benefit of comments from the Leadership Council, Board of Directors (in January) and the membership.

· The Legislative Council’s actions in April shall be considered final unless the Board of Directors requests a proposal be removed from a package for review.

The Leadership Council will meet shortly after the Legislative Council’s spring meeting to review the Legislative Council’s actions and provide advice to the Board of Directors.

In late April the Board of Directors will receive the Legislative Council’s report of legislative actions taken along with the Leadership Council’s report providing advice on legislative matters. The Legislative Council’s actions shall be considered final unless questioned by the Board of Directors.

This model assumes a membership override process similar to the current process.

This model also assumes provisions will be made to allow for the consideration of emergency and non-controversial legislation throughout the course of the legislative cycle.

Under this model the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) will 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.

c. Role and responsibilities of the Leadership Council. While the Leadership Council will help set the Division I legislative agenda and advise the Board regarding the big legislative