MEMORANDUM

June 12, 2002

TO: NCAA Divisions I, II and III Management Councils.

FROM: Bob Lawless, chair, NCAA Executive Committee.

SUBJECT: NCAA Ad Hoc Review Report.

The NCAA Executive Committee reviewed and received the NCAA Ad Hoc Review Report at its April meeting. The Committee recommended distribution to the membership and governance groups for review and feedback and agreed to reconsider the report with input from all three divisions during its August meeting. The Committee also suggested posting the report on the NCAA Web site. The report was posted on the NCAA Web site in early May, and a memorandum including the report was mailed May 28, 2002, to chief executive officers, faculty athletics representatives, directors of athletics, senior woman administrators and conference commissioners in all three divisions.

All three divisional governance groups are requested to review the report and provide a prioritized list of Association-wide issues and identify divisional issues, as appropriate, to the Executive Committee for consideration during its August 9 meeting. In an effort to facilitate the process, seven critical issues, identified as a result of the report are presented for consideration. During your discussions, there may be other Association-wide issues that merit consideration. Please include these as part of your prioritized list.

1. Given the concern expressed by the membership about the legislative process, should the Executive Committee ask the appropriate governance groups to consider and make recommendations for improvement?

2. Should the Executive Committee initiate a process for identifying CEO’s throughout the membership who are well suited to assume leadership roles in the NCAA?

3. Should the Executive Committee consider its composition to determine whether it needs to be re-composed in a way that would better represent the overall membership and permit it to serve as a more effective advocate for intercollegiate athletics within higher education.

4. Should the Executive Committee direct the NCAA staff to propose initiatives designed to improve communication and build support among various NCAA constituent groups (faculty, staff, students, administrators, trustees, etc.)?

5. Should the Executive Committee more clearly define its role in advocating for equal opportunity for minority and female constituents in intercollegiate athletics?

6. Should the Executive Committee clarify the role of conference commissioners and the NCAA staff in the NCAA?

7. Should the NCAA annual Convention be continued and, if so, how can it be strengthened as an opportunity to help ensure unity in the NCAA?

Background

As many of you know, the ad hoc committee was established in January 2001 to assess the NCAA federated governance structure since its formation in 1997. The committee comprised current and former leaders of the various presidential and Executive Committee bodies and included Charles Wethington, University of Kentucky, as chair; Patricia Cormier, Longwood College; Thomas Courtice, Ohio Wesleyan University; Ann Die, Hendrix College; Gladys Styles Johnston, University of Nebraska at Kearney; and Bob Lawless, University of Tulsa. The committee’s charge was to identify membership and staff perceptions on the governance structure, the move to Indianapolis, the Association’s core principles, and the national office staff role and membership communications. It was not charged to develop recommendations to address any issues or problems, if identified.

Executive Summary

The report, based on feedback from the membership through in-person interviews by committee members and written surveys, contains a comprehensive evaluation of the federated structure since its formation.

Surveys were sent to 4,445 presidents, directors of athletics, senior woman administrators, coaches, student-athletes, faculty athletics representatives, conference officials and NCAA staff members. While the response rate of 34 percent is too low to extrapolate the findings, some general conclusions can be drawn from the data.

· Governance.

o The membership believes the new governance structure has achieved greater CEO control and greater divisional autonomy.

o The structure has not simplified, at least not for Division I.

o Presidential involvement remains low.

· NCAA headquarters.

o Agreement that having the new office in Indianapolis has provided greater opportunities for interaction among the membership and staff.

· Core principles.

o Most valued principles are: student–athlete welfare, academic standards and institutional control.

· Staff role.

o Membership believes the staff plays an appropriate role in identifying and framing issues; however, nonpresidential constituencies are less comfortable with increased role of staff leadership.

· Communications.

o Members prefer to receive information through e-mail and memoranda.

o The NCAA News is an important source of information.

Seventy-eight personal interviews were conducted with presidents serving on the divisional presidential bodies, Management Council leaders and national office staff. General findings are:

· Presidents are particularly interested in the development of a tighter more educationally oriented agenda for the NCAA with the following issues needing attention.

o Student-athlete reform. This was the most important core principle of the NCAA. The interviewees believe that student-athlete welfare is best achieved through the creation and enforcement of policies that ensure positive educational outcomes for students.

o Academic standards. One of the top three core principles; however, the membership perceives the Association to be relatively ineffective in dealing with academic standards.

o Presidential involvement. CEOs must lead by spending time and energy to understand the complicated issues facing intercollegiate athletics. Also, CEOs must look beyond the narrow interests of their institutions, conferences and divisions; they must be courageous enough to make the tough decisions.

§ Division I presidents are frustrated by a system that does not encourage meaningful change.

§ Division I presidents believe the Board must have the authority to create or broaden legislation on a nonemergency basis.

o NCAA as one organization.

§ The highly federated governance structure has affected the NCAA’s ability to act on behalf of all member institutions.

§ Executive Committee may want to consider whether it could be recomposed in a way that would better represent the overall membership and permit it to serve as a more effective advocate for higher education.

o Fiscal issues and commercialization.

§ Public grows ever more skeptical of intercollegiate athletics ability to be a part of higher education.

o Public image.

§ Members await the development of the NCAA public affairs plans.

§ NCAA has opportunity through the public relations plan and the new CBS television agreement to convey its messages more effectively to a larger audience.

o Communications.

§ Communication among various constituencies is often dysfunctional.

§ This dysfunctional communication produces an environment in which it is difficult for the Association’s leadership to identify and prioritize issues.

o Diversity and equity.

§ Must find a way to make this more of a priority.

· In summary, in order to engage these issues the presidents may want to:

o Define clearer governance roles for athletics administrators, especially conference commissioners and national office staff.

o Encourage staff to anticipate issues and plan appropriate courses of action.

o Consider developing a simpler legislative process in Division I.

o Implement a more tightly targeted agenda.

BL: skt

Attachment