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, its December 21, 2006, conference call and its January 5, 2007, 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, it appeared that the Legislative Council would be considered subordinate to the Leadership Council. As a result of questions raised at the October Management Council meeting regarding this structural relationship, the subcommittee further examined its structural model and determined that the Legislative and Leadership Councils should both be at the same level of the governance structure and have separate and distinct functions. (Please see Attachment A for a diagram of the proposed governance structure.) Specifically, pursuant to the proposed structure, the Leadership Council will be the governance body responsible for examining issues on the horizon of intercollegiate athletics and for assisting the Board of Directors set the Division I agenda while the Legislative Council shall be responsible for considering each proposal in the annual legislative cycle, subject to the Board’s oversight.

(2) Minimum representational requirements. The Governance Subcommittee also recommends 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 recommendation at length and noted that the wording of the White Paper developed after the August meeting did not adequately convey the subcommittee’s commitment to diversity. Accordingly, the subcommittee recommended that the White Paper be modified as follows:

· To help ensure that the new governance structure has the flexibility to attract a diverse group of experienced Division I leaders, the current legislatively prescribed compositional requirements for the Division I Management Council and 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 issue-specific cabinets.

· As part of its oversight function, the Board shall strive to ensure those serving at the council and cabinet levels of the Division I governance structure represent a variety of perspectives and viewpoints reflective of the diversity of the Division I membership and shall provide interested administrators and academicians with leadership and growth opportunities.

b. Role and responsibilities of the Leadership Council. Having considered the Management Council members’ comments, the subcommittee moved on to examine the Leadership Council’s important role under the new governance structure. The subcommittee determined that the Leadership Council should have a variety of responsibilities both non-legislative and legislative in the new structure. Primary among those responsibilities would be to identify those strategic issues that can impact Division I and intercollegiate athletics as a whole. It is anticipated that this forward looking body will spend much of its time planning for the future of Division I and will help the Board of Directors set Division I’s course by providing the Board with background information, comments and advice. The Leadership Council will be charged with helping to chart the course of Division I and its members will be expected to have a national focus in their deliberation process rather than an institutional or a conference-based one. As part of its charge to assist the Board, the Leadership Council will help set the Division I legislative agenda identifying the significant issues that may require a legislative solution. Additionally, it is envisioned that the Leadership Council may provide the Board of Directors with advice, counsel and information regarding select legislative proposals in the annual legislative cycle. The level and type of legislative advice offered by the Leadership Council will be determined by the nature of issues being discussed and by the Board. It is anticipated that the Leadership Council will have three regular meetings per year, but may also meet to address special issues.

c. Legislative Process. Having discussed the role of the Leadership Council, the subcommittee moved on to discuss the role of the Legislative Council and the supporting legislative process. During the course of this examination, the subcommittee members noted that after years of tinkering with the current legislative process, the process 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, 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 with the help of the Leadership Council would help set the Division I agenda by suggesting legislative concepts for development 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 issue-specific cabinets would possibly meet in the early fall, similar to the timeframe in which the cabinets currently meet.

Notes:

· Given the recommendation that there be as many as 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 or that some will not have to meet as early in the legislative cycle to discuss legislative issues.

· Further, given that the proposed cabinets will be smaller in size than the current cabinets, (i.e., 21 members) it is recommended that each cabinet work as a cabinet of the whole rather than functioning as a series of subcommittees to ensure that recommendations developed by the complete representative group. This recommendation is made to counter concerns that in the current governance structure small subcommittees may have undue influence.

· The cabinets will play a legislative role similar to that currently played by the cabinets 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 annual legislative cycle.

· Similar to the role the Legislative Review Subcommittee (LRS) currently performs, the Legislative Council will review proposals to identify the implications and ramifications of the legislation. Additionally, the Legislative Council would be charged with trying to identify possible interpretative issues.

· On the second day of the Legislative Council’s meeting, it 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 Send out for comment and additional consideration by the Division I membership and governance structure. (Category 2)

ü Defeat. (Category 3)

· The subcommittee discussed the idea 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. If the Legislative Council is unable to reconcile legislative proposals at this meeting due to timing issues, the Legislative Council will be charged with reconciling proposals at its January meeting.

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’s comments and suggest legislative modifications will be instructive to the legislative sponsors.

It is envisioned that at points during the legislative cycle, the Leadership Council may offer comments and advice to assist the Board of Directors regarding select legislative proposals in the annual legislative cycle.

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

Notes:

· The subcommittee discussed the importance of providing the governance substructure and affiliated groups with time 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 prepare for the initial consideration of legislation in January.

· This model envisions that the comments and suggestions from both the Legislative Council and possibly 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 and affiliated groups will be instructive to the Legislative Council as it seeks to take formal action on legislation at its January meeting.

The Legislative 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 to formally consider legislation.

Notes:

· The Legislative Council will have three options when voting on 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).

· To assist the Board in managing its workload, the Legislative Council’s actions on legislative proposals in Categories 1 and 3 will be considered final and shall be reported to the Board in January as informational items. The Board shall properly have the authority though, to remove proposals from the Category 1 and 3 reports for further review and discussion. Legislative proposals for which the Legislative Council recommends additional membership review and comment shall be listed as Category 2 proposals and will be shared with the Board as information in January.

The Board of Directors will meet at the NCAA Convention and as part of its agenda it will receive a report from the Legislative Council regarding legislative actions taken by that group. As noted above, the Board shall properly have the authority to remove proposals from the Category 1 and 3 reports for further review and discussion.

Subsequent to the 60-day comment period, in late March or earlier April, the Legislative Council will 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 Board of Directors (in January) and the membership.

· The Legislative Council’s legislative actions in April shall be considered final unless the Board of Directors has identified specific proposals for its consideration.

In late April the Board of Directors will receive the Legislative Council’s report of legislative actions. The Legislative Council’s legislative actions shall be considered final although the Board of Directors shall appropriately have the authority to consider any legislative action taken by the Legislative Council.

This model assumes the existence of 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. The current voting process and requirements for adoption of emergency or non-controversial proposals shall remain intact.

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.

d. Communication Strategies. The subcommittee discussed the fact that for the new Division I governance structure to truly be effective and efficient, there must be strong communication between the various governance bodies. While the subcommittee has yet to develop a specific communications plan for the new structure, the subcommittee members did discuss the importance of representatives from both the Legislative Council and the Leadership Council reporting to the Board of Directors on an as needed basis. Additionally, the group acknowledged that there must be good communication between the