MINUTES OF THE

[Note: These minutes contain only actions taken (formal votes or stated "sense of the meeting") in accordance with NCAA policy regarding minutes of all Association entities. While certain items on the Council's agenda were acted on at various times throughout the meeting, all final actions within a given topic are combined in these minutes for convenience of reference.]

The meeting was called to order at 8:05 a.m. by the chair, Ms. Bassett. All members were present as noted above.

1. Roster, Future Meeting Schedule and Division III Newsletter. The Council reviewed the roster, future meeting schedule and newsletter. Bassett welcomed John McCardell, president, Middlebury College, and Division III Presidents Council chair; Stacie Wentz, the Division III governance intern; and Leeland Zeller, associate director of NCAA membership services to the meeting.

2. Previous Minutes. The Council reviewed the minutes of its October 20-21, 2003, meeting; the October 30, 2003, Presidents Council meeting; the October 31, 2003, Executive Committee meeting; and October 24 and November 13, 2003, Administrative Committee actions.

It was VOTED

“That the minutes of the Management Council’s October 20-21, 2003, meeting and the October 24 and November 13, 2003, Administrative Committee actions be approved.”

3. Division III Strategic Planning. The Council reviewed the Division III strategic plan. It also noted that the Strategic-Planning Subcommittee will meet in late February/early March to compare divisional goals and objectives with those contained in the new Association-wide strategic plan.

4. Committee/Subcommittee Reports.

a. Association-Wide Committees.

(1) Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports (CSMAS). The Council received an oral report of the work of the committee.

(2) Honors Committee. The Council approved the committee’s recommendation to change the criteria for the NCAA Silver Anniversary Award to allow the committee to annually select a maximum of six honorees based on the quality of the application pool instead of requiring a total of six honorees.

(3) Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee. The Council received an oral report of the work of the committee.

(4) Olympic Sports Liaison Committee (OSLC). The Council:

a. Waiver U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)//National Governing Bodies (NGBs). Agreed to adopt noncontroversial legislation to amend Bylaw 14.1.8.1.6 (Waiver – USOC/National Governing Bodies) to permit student-athletes with eligibility remaining and who are not enrolled full-time to participate in practices in team sports.

b. Formation of Joint USOC/NCAA Task Force to Develop Strategies to Maintain Olympic Sports at the NCAA Level. Approved the creation of a joint task force with the USOC to study the decline in sponsorship of Olympic sports at NCAA institutions and develop strategies to maintain sport sponsorship within the NCAA. The Council also recommended an Association-wide two-year budget allocation of $25,000.

c. Travel of OSLC Members to Attend NGB Events. Approved the recommendation to allocate annual funding for OSLC members to attend a limited number of NGB events to foster relationships and work with the NGBs to resolve issues of mutual interest.

(5) Postgraduate Scholarship Committee. The Council received an oral report of the work of the committee.

(6) Research Committee. The Council received an oral report of the work of the committee.

(7) Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Committee. The Council noted items of information submitted by the committee.

(8) Walter Byers Scholarship Committee. The Council received an oral report of the work of the committee.

(9) Committee on Women's Athletics. The Council received an oral report of the work of the committee.

b. Division III Special Committees.

(1) Joint Subcommittee on the Future of Division III. The Council:

(a) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Feedback. Recommended that the Presidents Council discuss the fall 2003 CEO feedback received from feedback forms, conference visits and calls. The Council noted:

l Minimal response to the feedback form, approximately 20 percent.

l Three proposals appear to require continued efforts – redshirting; playing and practice season limits; and multidivision financial aid.

l Critical to continue to advocate for the reform package since many are waiting for the Division III Issues Forum, conference discussions and floor debate to determine institutional positions.

(b) Transition Plan. Recommended that the Presidents Council endorse a transition structure to implement Proposal No. 66, if adopted. The proposed structure would incorporate the most effective aspects of the two-year "Future of Division III" reform process:

l Establish a joint oversight group of Management Council/Presidents Council members to establish charge and timetable; manage issues; and report regularly to the Management Council and Presidents Council.

l Use the existing Division III committee structure whenever possible to address relevant issues and report through the oversight group to the Management Council and Presidents Council.

The Council also recommended:

l Focus on cultural issues using research-based initiatives to quantify academic data and athletics participation experiences.

l Continued engagement of CEOs is essential.

l The goal is to enhance CEO involvement at institutional, conference and national levels.

l Retention of conference/independent group visits by Council members throughout the year.

l Continued significant commitment to membership dialogue and involvement (e.g., surveys, focus groups, regional meetings).

l Significant role and impact of conferences in future discussions.

l Continued dialogue between NCAA and external interested groups like the Mellon Foundation's College Sports Project.

l Enhanced emphasis on institutional and conference autonomy as a vehicle for reform.

(d) Conference Meetings and Feedback. Discussed fall 2003 conference visit summaries submitted by Council members, noting:

l Impetus to engage CEOs has been positive.

l Varying differences of constituent opinions exist; however, momentum and involvement of CEOs has been significant for institutional and conference-wide dialogue.

l Consideration of ways to better quantify academics and experiences of athletics participation.

(e) Timetable 2003-2004. Reviewed the timetable of fall activities leading to the 2004 Convention, noting significant membership communication.

(2) Financial Aid Review Task Force.

(a) Review of Financial Aid Pre-Pilot Results. Accepted the task force’s pre-pilot results and related recommendations:

l Availability and Relevance of Data Elements. The pre-pilot consisted of 26 institutions, with 19 reporting.

¡ Demographics and Academic Variables. The requested demographics included: sport; gender; and race/ethnicity. The requested academic variables included: high-school grade-point average; ACT or SAT; and class rank. The committee and task force concluded that much of the demographic and academic data either were unavailable or had limited relevancy. To reduce burden, sport will be the only nonfinancial data element requested for the division-wide pilot. The committee and task force noted that institutions may use demographics and academic variables to help justify a variance.

¡ Sport Breakdown. The committee and task force determined that institutions must provide a breakdown of financial aid awarded to student-athletes per sport. The committee and task force also agreed that institutions must compile and submit data for all NCAA sports for which there is an NCAA championship, and those sports that the institution sponsors for membership purposes.

¡ Definition of Student-Athlete. The committee and task force reviewed the pre-pilot results and found that the participating institutions used different definitions of a student-athlete when compiling financial aid data. The committee and task force agreed to use one standard to determine which individuals are student-athletes: A student-athlete is an individual who, as of the day of the varsity team’s

first regularly scheduled contest or date of competition in the championship segment, is listed on the roster.

¡ Multisport Student-Athletes. The committee and task force agreed that institutions must count multisport student-athletes in each sport, consistent with other reporting processes for athletics.

¡ Aggregate Report and Student-Athletes. The committee and task force agreed that each institution should include all incoming freshmen and transfer student-athletes and all incoming students in the report. The committee and task force determined that the burden would be lessened and the data more relevant if they include all incoming student-athletes instead of a random number of student-athletes.

¡ Financial Need Calculation. The committee and task force reviewed the requested data elements the pre-pilot participants were required to calculate to determine the financial need of students: cost of attendance; expected family contribution; federal methodology; and institutional methodology. The committee and task force recommended maintaining all financial aid data elements. The committee and task force also reviewed issues regarding federal and institutional methodology, and the committee and task force determined that institutions should continue to report federal and institutional methodologies. The committee and task force were provided an overview regarding financial need that is reported as zero or missing and agreed that, in both situations, the financial need would be reported as no need.

¡ Grants and Scholarships. The committee and task force reviewed NCAA Bylaw 15.4.1 and 2004 Convention Proposal No. 56 and concluded that, in order to comply, institutions must provide the total amount of each student’s financial aid package. The following grants and scholarships must be reported: Pell Grant; Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant; total state grants and scholarships; total institutional grants and scholarships; total private grants and scholarships; and other resources.

¡ Loan Programs. The committee and task force requested data on the following loan programs: Federal Stafford Loan; Federal Perkins Loan Program; Federal Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students; and alternative loan programs and agreed to eliminate all data from loan programs to reduce the burden.

¡ Work Study. The committee and task force agreed to request information on whether work study was granted in a "yes or no" format. The committee and task force noted that institutions may use work study data as a justification for a variance.

l Findings Based on Feedback.

¡ Electronic Data Submission and Analysis. The committee and task force reviewed the pre-pilot findings regarding the electronic data submission process through a data file versus the Compliance Assistant Internet, and concluded that, to reduce the burden for the financial aid, information technology, athletics and admissions staffs, institutions will compile and submit data through the submission of an electronic data file. The committee and task force agreed that they will create a standard electronic report and supply it to the institution. The committee and task force further agreed to provide detailed instructions to enable institutions to create their own reports for self-analysis, if desired.

¡ Burden. The committee and task force decided to significantly reduce the requested data elements to lessen the burden. The committee and task force further determined that it must provide institutions with as much prior notice as possible regarding the submission deadline to allow institutions to prioritize the report with other projects. The committee and task force discussed grant money that will be available to institutions to implement the start-up program for the division-wide pilot in 2004. The committee and task force agreed there should be no need for an annual budget allocation beyond 2004, noting it will be necessary to establish more formal policies and procedures related to accessing the grant money.

¡ Consent and Confidentiality. The committee and task force discussed that consent of student-athletes is granted through the NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Statement (Constitution 3.2.4.5). The committee and task force agreed that due to the depth of the record-level data and the small number of individuals in certain need brackets or sports, the data could be aggregated over a period of time so that individuals will not be identifiable. The committee and task force eliminated data elements such as gender, race/ethnicity, and academic variables that would increase the likelihood of identification. The committee and task force agreed to submit the procedures of the reporting process to the NCAA Research Review Board to ensure the subjects’ privacy.

¡ Packaging Methodologies. The committee and task force reviewed the various methods of packaging financial aid (e.g., matrix system, need-based, gapping) and concluded that the reporting process provides institutions with the opportunity to analyze its own financial aid awarding practices without comparing packages among institutions; therefore, the various methodologies will not be an issue. The committee and task force concluded that this area should not be identified as a burden.

(b) Variance. Accepted the information that the committee and task force determined that the pre-pilot results could not establish an acceptable variance due to the small size of the sample and the parameters and goals for which the pre-pilot was designed, noting that the division-wide pilot in 2004-05 is expected to produce further data for use in establishing an acceptable variance.

(c) Random Analysis by the Committee. Accepted the information that the committee and task force agreed that the committee should review the reports of randomly selected institutions each year;

however, determining the exact number or limit would be premature until the completion of the division-wide pilot.

(d) Reports of the Pre-Pilot Institutions. Accepted the information that the committee and task force directed the research staff to prepare detailed anonymous reports of the 19 institutions that submitted data for the pre-pilot.

(e) Education of the Membership. Accepted the information that the committee and task force directed the staff to develop a training session for financial aid administrators and conference administrators to facilitate the implementation of the division-wide pilot and the new reporting process if Proposal No. 56 is adopted.

(f) Composition of the Committee. Accepted the information that the committee and task force agreed that Proposal No. NC-28 should be amended if Proposal No. 56 is adopted to increase from four to five the number of financial aid administrators to serve on the Division III Financial Aid and Awards Committee.

c. Management Council Subcommittees.

(1) Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee. The Council received an oral report, noting that the subcommittee was scheduled to meet subsequent to the Council meeting and had no anticipated action items until April.

(2) Administrative Review Subcommittee. The Council approved the subcommittee's amended policies and procedures to clarify the following issues: (a) permitting the chair to determine that the subcommittee may reconsider a request even if the new information standard is not met; and (b) in cases where assertions are made regarding another member institution or conference as a basis for relief, that party shall be provided all materials and an opportunity to respond in writing within 10 business days.

(3) Academic Issues Subcommittee. The Council received an oral report of the work of the subcommittee.

d. Division III General Committees.

(1) Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC). The Council noted items