1. Several months ago, a group of mostly chief-aide level representatives from public affairs, championships and governance began meeting to discuss playing rules issues. Robin Green, Jan Brown and Bridget Belgiovine from the governance staff have attended some or all of these meetings.

2. Among several issues addressed by this group has been that of who is eligible to serve as a secretary-rules editor. At the outset, there was a difference of opinion among staff about whether the "on the staff" requirement applies to secretary-rules editors. The membership services staff determined that it did [secretary-rules editors are identified as committee members (Bylaw 21.3.1 — "The secretary-rules editor...shall be a nonvoting member of the committee") and committee members must be "on the staff" of a member institution or conference (Bylaw 21.6.1.1)].

3. The next question involved whether the "on the staff" requirement for this position is being satisfied in a matter that is proper or that serves the best interests of the Association.

4. In some key instances — football and men’s basketball — retired individuals have served as secretary-rules editors. This has been accomplished largely because the relevant institution or conference certifies that the individual meets the "on the staff" requirement through part-time work, consulting or other means. However, nobody has ever really questioned whether these people truly meet the "on the staff" requirement, and the sense of many of us is that they would not meet the standard if their situations were examined closely. This approach is not new: Ed Steitz in basketball and Davy Nelson in football — both large figures in NCAA history — served as secretary-rules editors after retirement from their athletics director positions at Springfield and Delaware. Current cases involve John Adams (football) and Ed Bilik (basketball). Although our knowledge is only anecdotal, we understand that their real "jobs" in retirement are serving as secretary-rules editors. If that is indeed the case, they would appear not to be eligible under Bylaw 21.6.1.1 because they don’t have regular staff functions and don’t have normal workloads.

5. However, retired people make excellent secretary-rules editors if they have vast knowledge of the game accumulated over a career, have time available for what can be a time-intensive job (much more time is required of this position than of a regular rules committee position) and don’t have another source of income that might constitute a conflict of interest. Their historic perspective can be especially valuable. So, that raises the first question: A strict interpretation of Bylaw 21.6.1.1 would eliminate many retired people as secretary-rules editors, but why would we want to do that?

6. A related issue involves water polo. In that sport, the actual secretary-rules editor is strictly a figurehead. Everybody acknowledges that the real expert is a woman outside of our structure, but she is ineligible to serve as secretary-rules editor because she does not meet the "on the staff" requirement. In baseball, the new secretary-rules editor is eligible because he is on the dental faculty at Michigan; however, if he were simply a dentist, he would not be eligible for the position. He has no affiliation with the athletics department, and his knowledge of college baseball is enhanced in no way by his institutional affiliation. It is nothing more than a happy coincidence that he can serve in this capacity.

7. Also, in women’s volleyball, the person best suited for the position as secretary-rules editor is shared in an employment consortium arrangement by various conferences. She clearly meets the spirit of Bylaw 21.6.1.1, but she technically does not meet the "on the staff" requirement for any single institution or conference. Items No. 6 and 7 raise the following question: When you have a limited number of people who are qualified or willing to serve as secretary-rules editors, why would we create restrictions that unnecessarily limit the field or that encourage "shadow" secretary-rules editors?

8. The conclusion of both the communications (publishing) and championships staffs is that these questions could best be answered by eliminating the "on the staff" requirement for secretary-rules editors and permitting the position to be filled by the best qualified person. The standards would be knowledge of NCAA rules for the sport in question, a willingness to commit the necessary time and the absence of a conflict of interest. Making such a change would better serve the respective sports, broaden the field of potential secretary-rules editors and align our legislation with the customary practice of occasionally using retired people to fill these positions.