MINUTES OF THE
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
DIVISION III MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
NCAA National Office October 16-17, 2006
Participants:
Jennifer
Braaten,
Valerie Cushman, Randolph-Macon Woman’s College
Jone Dowd,
Patricia
Epps,
Tim Gleason,
Kristen Hall,
Rudy Keeling,
Del Malloy,
Heather
Mathis, student-athlete,
Kevin McHugh,
The
Michael
Miranda,
Jack Ohle,
Garnett
Purnell,
Rosy Resch,
Sandra
Slabik,
Richard
Strockbine,
Kay Whitley,
Charlie
Wilson,
Matt Banker, NCAA
Jack Copeland, NCAA
Daniel T. Dutcher, NCAA
Jennifer Kearns, NCAA
Debbie Kresge, NCAA, recording secretary
Leah Nilsson, NCAA
Susan Peal, NCAA
Myles Brand,
NCAA president; Elsa Cole, General Counsel; Bernard Franklin, NCAA senior
vice-president for governance and membership; Eric Hartung, NCAA research
staff, Delise O’Meally, NCAA; and Mary Wilfert, NCAA education services attended
portions of the
meeting.
Michael
Unwin, student-athlete,
[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.]
Monday, July 17
1. Welcome
and Announcements. Mr. Miranda
welcomed members to the meeting;
acknowledged newest member of the Management Council, Garnett Purnell; and welcomed
Leah Nilsson, in her new role as Director of Division III.
2. Rosters, Future Meeting Schedule and Division III Newsletter. The Council reviewed the roster, future meeting schedule and newsletter, noting no changes.
3. Previous Minutes. The Council reviewed the minutes of its July 17-18, 2006, meeting; the August 3, 2006, Presidents Council meeting; the August 3, 2006, Executive Committee meeting; the August 7, August 22, August 30 and September 13, 2006, Administrative Committee action.
“That the minutes of the Management Council’s July
17-18, 2006, and the August 7, August 22, August 30 and September 13, 2006,
Administrative Committee action be
approved.”
4. Committee/Subcommittee
Reports.
a. Association-Wide
Committees.
(1) Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports (CSMAS). The Council:
(a) Noncontroversial Legislation – NCAA Bylaw 31.2.3.4 (banned drugs). Adopted noncontroversial legislation to amend Bylaw 31.2.3.4 (banned drugs) to add a class of drugs – anti-estrogens, effective August 1, 2007. This class of drugs includes substances, such as tamoxifen and clomiphene that may be used to manipulate a sample by masking anabolic steroid use. Anabolic steroid users use anti-estrogens to minimize side effects of steroids use (the body naturally converts anabolic steroids into estrogens) and to stimulate testosterone production. The NCAA considers these products banned under Bylaw 31.2.3.4.1 (manipulation of urine samples). Identifying the class of anti-estrogens under Bylaw 31.2.3.4 clarifies their status as banned. In addition, with the inclusion of this class of substances under Bylaw 31.2.3.4, this class also should be identified under Bylaw 31.2.3.5 and eligible for a medical exception review. In advance of the effective date and the posting of the new list, staff will send out information to educate the membership. There shall be no additional burden on time commitment of student-athletes and they will have a clearer sense of these banned substances.
(b) 2008 NCAA Convention Legislation – Extension of Committee Service. Agreed to sponsor legislation for the 2008 Convention that would allow for an exception to extend by one year the service of the chair of the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports (CSMAS), if the chair becomes chair with only one year left of the four years of committee service, effective August 1, 2008. Service on CSMAS is a true learning experience. Though there is a mechanism for a rising chair, that person generally is not identified until the completion of two years of service. After the rising year (third year of service), the new chair then has only one year of the four years of committee service to act as chair. The complexities and impact of the issues before this committee, and the need for consistent, learned leadership, require a chair that has had the opportunity to “learn” the position and to provide continuity of service. This option would be enacted only when circumstances warrant the extension, i.e., the chair enters in the fourth year of committee service.
(c) Division III Academic Year Round Drug Education and Testing Pilot. Reviewed the information presented regarding the drug pilot, noting that 140 institutions have responded to date. Those 140 institutions include 138 active members, one reclassifying member
and one provisional member, representing 40 conferences and five independents.
The Council discussed the following details regarding the pilot:
· All sports will be included in some way, but sports with higher incidence of drug use will be targeted for greater participation (e.g., football, basketball and track and field).
· To measure effectiveness of the pilot, the NCAA will administer an assessment tool prior to education and testing and after those efforts.
· Student-athlete selection: The National Center for Drug Free Sport will request a roster for those sports chosen to be tested. A selection will be made from that roster to produce a representative sample.
· The final summary will reveal only the institution’s number of positive results. All other information will be confidential.
· Results data will be given to participating institutions on aggregate level for all teams at the institution. National results will report usage by sport, as well as demographic breakdowns such as public or private affiliation, enrollment and geographic region.
· January 2007 Convention discussion session will update membership on program details, including information regarding pool of participating schools.
· Institutions should be reminded to discuss pilot participation with institutional legal counsel.
· Recommended that the final list of pilot participants not be released to the membership.
The Council also discussed whether to allow institutions that already have a program in existence to participate by using their information for a separate analysis. The sense of the meeting was this would be permissible.
(d) Testing and Sanctions for Street Drugs. Accepted the information that the committee is exploring a recommendation to test for street drugs in the Division I and II year-round testing program and to apply a distinct sanctioning tract for the use of street drugs that is appropriately responsive to the health issues presented when street-drug use is identified – as opposed to the response to cheating through the use of performance-enhancing drugs – and to test for
all banned substances in the year-round program, including street drugs. Under this recommendation, the sanctions for a positive test for a street drug would involve a withholding from 50 percent of competition in all sports for a first positive, withholding for a year for a second positive and permanent loss of eligibility for a third positive. In addition, reinstatement would require a negative NCAA exit test, documentation provided by the institution identifying the results of scheduled institutional drug tests during the withholding period and documentation of an assessment and education or treatment plan conducted with the student-athlete. Student-athletes will have the right to appeal a positive drug test for a street drug but the option to reduce the penalty will not be available within this new tract.
(2) NCAA Olympic Sports Liaison Committee. The Council:
(a) Updates
from the Fall NCAA Olympic Sports Liaison Committee Meeting. Accepted the information that the
Olympic Sports Liaison Committee was informed that the November 2006 meeting
will occur in
(b) Discussion
Regarding the Recommendation of the NCAA/USOC Task Force. Accepted the information that the
NCAA/USOC Task Force created several recommendations designed to help institutions
maintain Olympic sports. The task
force recommendations called for the committee to develop a package of
legislative recommendations designed to protect and expand endangered and
at-risk sports. The committee
reviewed and discussed various recommendations in the areas of amateurism,
expenses, playing and practice seasons, as well as financial aid. In addition, it discussed that some
sports are, in fact, endangered while others are at risk of being endangered. As the committees understanding of the
issue evolved, so did its appreciation for the magnitude and complexity of the
issues. Based on extensive
discussion at the committee level, it is considering a package of
recommendations designed to decrease the expenses associated with endangered
and at-risk
sports, and it is creating a summary document of possible legislative changes in order to solicit feedback and input. This summary document will be forwarded for comment to the NGBs, the USOC and other entities within the NCAA governance structure. This feedback will be reviewed by the committee at its November meeting, with the goal of creating a legislative proposal by the 2008 Convention proposal submission deadline.
(c) Update from the USOC. Accepted the information that the USOC was represented by Jeff Howard. Mr. Howard provided the committee with an update from the second annual USOC assembly meeting and indicated that the U.S. Olympic Committee has increased its focus on issues related to the Olympic ideal which espouses blending sport with culture and education, and creating a way of life based on the job found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
(d) Strategic Plan. Accepted the information that the committee reviewed its strategic plan and provided updates regarding the status of many items.
(e) Meeting with NGBs. Accepted the information that the committee met with representatives from USA Track and Field, US Soccer Federation, USA Table Tennis Association, USA Triathlon, US Curling Association, United States Diving and USA Gymnastics.
·
· US Soccer Federation. The committee met with Forrest Eber, and he provided an overview of programming and national teams. In the past, there have been some issues with events and the provision of expenses, which were not permissible under NCAA legislation. US Soccer will be more diligent in reviewing such events and the provision of
expenses with membership services prior to the involvement of any prospective student-athletes or student-athletes.
·
·
· US Curling Association. The committee met with David Garber. Much of the discussion centered around the criteria for becoming an emerging sport for women and the growth of the sport on the collegiate level. He provided extensive information on the structure of curling events and the costs associated with sponsoring curling. He also was referred to the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association as a resource for development on the club level.
· United States Diving. The committee with Todd Smith. He discussed two issues:
o Mr. Smith reviewed the two-step selection process for the national team. At the first selection camp, divers complete a list of specific dives and the top 20 participants move on to a second selection camp. The national team is selected from the participants in the second selection camp. United States Diving would like for collegiate coaches to be able to coach their athletes during the selection camps. It is unclear whether these camps take place in or out of the collegiate-playing season. The liaisons to the committee will work with Mr. Smith to further review this issue and acquire more details.
o NCAA Division I Bylaw 30.11.9.1.1 provides that when the dead period for recruiting occurs during the U.S. Diving National Championships, it shall be permissible to observe prospective student-athletes participating in that event. United States Diving indicated that they have changed the name of the event to the US Open and would like to have the legislation changed to reflect the name change; however, the US Open is not a national championship. Per United States Diving regulations, the US Open may not be considered a national championship in that international athletes are allowed to participate in the event. The liaisons to the committee will research the history of Bylaw 30.11.9.1.1 and continue discussions with Mr. Smith.
·
o The organization would like to use collegiate coaches as volunteers at various events in which prospective student-athletes may be participating. The coaches would not participate in coaching duties, but would serve as floor managers and other similar activities. Currently, Bylaw 13.11.3.4 precludes collegiate coaches from participating in this manner at such events. The committee will refer this issue to the gymnastics committee and the committees which focus on recruiting for each division.
o Mr. Galimore also discussed the ability for an institution to provide expenses for a former student-athlete who has exhausted eligibility to tryout or participate in an event. There was a reference to an NCAA restriction that would preclude this activity if the student-athlete exhausted eligibility more than one year ago. The liaisons to the committee will work with Mr. Galimore to acquire more detail and understanding of the issue.
o The USA Gymnastic Collegiate Event for women has been changed in that it occurs after the end of the playing season, as defined in Division III. The liaisons of the committee will work with Mr. Galimore to gather more information on this issue.
(3) Playing
Rules Oversight Panel. The
Council adopted noncontroversial legislation that will allow the NCAA Playing
Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) to oversee the selection process, approve the
nominations for
secretary-rules editor candidates and review waiver requests for
secretary-rules editor term limits, as specified in NCAA Bylaws 21.3.1.1.1 and
21.4.1.1.1. PROP was created to
streamline the oversight of playing rules issues, which are
Association-wide. The current bylaw
language does not include the appointment of the secretary-rules editors within
the oversight parameters, and there is no established process for selection of
these positions. The
secretary-rules editor serves as the national rules interpreter for the playing
rules committee and is charged with answering questions from coaches,
officials, administrators and the general public, as well as editing the rules
book annual. The secretary-rules
editors are not required to be from a specific division nor associated with an
NCAA member institution or conference.
Because the post is highly specialized and unique, the approval
authority should be maintained by the members of PROP, who are all
administrators with playing rules experience.
(4) Research Committee. The Council:
(a) Update on the Study of College Outcomes & Recent Experiences (SCORE). Accepted the information on update of SCORE, focusing on the sampling plan and preliminary findings. It was noted that a series of research reports will be released throughout this calendar year as analyses are conducted in specific topic areas. A large-scale presentation of findings is being planned for the 2007 NCAA Convention.
(b) Update on Growth, Opportunities, Aspirations and Learning of Students in College (GOALS) Study. Accepted the information that the sampling procedures, test administration, Institutional Review Board issues and response rate pertaining to the GOALS study were discussed.
(c) Discussion of the NCAA Committee Mandate and its Effects on the Future of the Research Committee. Accepted the information that the committee members understood the mandate and focused on exploring ways in which the Research Committee may restructure itself to better serve the NCAA research staff, other NCAA staff members and the membership. It became clear through the discussion that there are two primary purposes of the committee: (1) providing feedback on new and ongoing research conducted by
the NCAA research staff; and (2) administering the grant program for research proposed by outside investigators. On the first point, the committee instructed NCAA staff to explore means of electronically distributing research presentations and reports to the committee members, enabling them to provide comment in a timely manner. Recognizing that the current grant program was inadequate due to a mismatch between available funding and the written commitment to studies that are relatively large in scope and generalizable to the wider membership, the committee instructed NCAA staff to explore a grant program structure where a “call for proposals” was employed to ensure the proposed research would be focused in a topic area timely and relevant. Further, the committee proposed a program model where a number of smaller amount grants (e.g., $5,000) were offered in the hopes of attracting doctoral dissertations and master’s theses. This could potentially increase the number of proposals received and provide the committee the ability to fund student-level research. In addition, the committee instructed NCAA staff to explore ways in which the grant winners could be publicly recognized and given the opportunity to present their findings to a group of peers. The Faculty Athletics Representatives Association (FARA) Fall Forum was suggested. With the possible link between the proposed grant program and the FARA Fall Forum, the committee discussed the option of holding their annual meeting in conjunction with that event.
(d) Research Proposals. Accepted the information that the committee reviewed three research proposals from external researchers and chose not to fund them.
(e) Division III Financial Aid Reporting Program – Year 1 Findings. Accepted the information that findings were presented from the first year of the Division III Financial Aid Reporting Program, including outcomes from the program’s Level I Review Process and aggregate information pertaining to the variance estimate and other indicators.
(5) Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct. The Council:
(a)
(b) Review of Report of November Meeting. Accepted the information that the committee’s divisional Management Council representatives reported each division’s reaction to the committee’s report from the November meeting. The Division II Management Council endorsed the direction of the committee and the recent actions of the committee contacting conferences when unsportsmanlike conduct occurs.
(c) Sports Wagering Update. Accepted the information that the committee discussed multiple initiatives being implemented by the NCAA agents, gambling and amateurism staff. The issues included the following:
·
Facebook.com. The committee discussed the growth of
the Web site and the impact that negative images/pictures on a
student-athlete’s page could have on sportsmanship issues. The staff also noted that inclusion of
details related to
student-athlete participation could be information sought out by gamblers and
bookmakers, undermining the Association’s efforts against sports
wagering.
· Sports wagering task force initiatives. Background checks for football officials will be implemented for the 2006-07 postseason football games.
· The sports-wagering staff met with the equipment managers association. Focused on Divisions II and III, the sports wagering staff had more of a presence at the Division II and III leadership conferences.
·
Another Association-wide initiative on which the
staff is working during the 2006-07 academic year is a
“Don’t Bet on It” campaign, in which head coaches will be
provided lapel pins to be worn during a designed “Sports Wagering
Awareness Day.” The committee
previewed the newly developed “Don’t Bet on It” educational
DVD. The committee noted that this
DVD should be widely distributed and also discussed the value of having public
service announcements (PSAs) at championship events. With the increase in Web casting
championship competition, the committee noted this avenue would be a good
opportunity for PSAs in the future.
(d) Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) Update. Accepted the information that Ty Halpin and Heather Perry, staff liaisons for
PROP, discussed issues of interest to both committees. The liaisons noted that supporting officials was critical to enforcing the playing rules, especially in the area of technical fouls. The liaisons also noted that the issue of sportsmanship is discussed at every playing rules committee meeting and the groups welcomed and supported any action of the committee in its efforts to instill accountability on behalf of the Association in addressing unsportsmanlike conduct. The committee suggested that the playing rules committee annually review, (and revise where appropriate), sportsmanship statements included in each sports rules book.
(e) Subcommittee Breakouts. Accepted the information that prior to the strategic planning subcommittee and the accountability subcommittee breakout sessions, the full committee discussed its NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1 policy (July 2005 report). The committee agreed to increase educational efforts and ensure that all commissioner groups understand the process for communicating with a conference office regarding an incident. The charge of the accountability subcommittee includes establishing a protocol for addressing such incidents.
· Accountability Subcommittee. The subcommittee noted that when the committee or NCAA staff contacts a conference or institution regarding a negative incident, the purpose of the communication is to determine how the issue was handled. The NCAA is frequently asked to comment on these issues and additional background information is helpful.
The subcommittee noted that examples of positive sportsmanship are not always forthcoming as individuals are not as conditioned to share those instances as they are to share examples of unsportsmanlike conduct.
The subcommittee agreed to the following methods for collecting information related to positive instances of sportsmanship.
o Ask officials to share observations of exemplary behavior.
o PROP will encourage reporting of positive actions, with those individuals it contacts.
o Have the regional site representative for a championship relay instances of positive behavior to the national office.
o If a host institution/conference conducts a championship or a regular-season event in an outstanding way that promotes sportsmanship, this needs to be highlighted to the committee.
When positive behavior is reported to the national office or a subcommittee member, a letter acknowledging the positive actions will be sent to the involved individual, institution, etc.
The second issue the subcommittee addressed relates to unsportsmanlike conduct that meets one of the following three factors that were adopted at the committee’s July 2005 meeting:
o Issue of national significance.
o National exposure/extensive regional press.
o Actions did not uphold sportsmanship.
In terms of specific protocol to address situations meeting one of the three criteria, the subcommittee will allow a reasonable amount of time for the school and conference to respond and adjudicate the issue. In the interim, the issue will be circulated to the subcommittee members for private reaction. If the institution and/or conference have met its responsibility under Bylaw 10.01.1, the issue is considered resolved.
If the action taken is not known to the subcommittee or it appears that no action was taken, then either the chair or staff will contact the conference or institution to determine if action was or is being taken. [Note: Action can be limited to a thorough review of the matter.] If no review or action was taken, then a letter may be sent to the institution, conference or both, depending on jurisdictional issues.
· Strategic-Planning Subcommittee. The subcommittee identified additional best practices for inclusion in the sportsmanship and ethical behavior tool kit. Institutional sportsmanship initiatives include:
o Individual sportsmanship awards presented annually at an athletics banquet for each team.
o The provision of a letter to the parents of student-athletes with a message of “Cheer for us, not against the other team.”
o Collaborate with campus Student-Athlete Advisory Committees to organize a seminar on good sportsmanship and share examples of good sportsmanship.
o&nb