REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION III MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

1. ACTION ITEMS.

a. Conference Self-Study Guide.

(1) Recommendation. Endorse the Division III Conference Self-Study Guide (CSSG) as the instrument for conferences to conduct a comprehensive self-study and evaluation of their intercollegiate athletics programs. [Attachment A]

(2) Rationale. With the adoption of 2006 Convention Proposal No. 13, the Membership Committee was charged with the development of the CSSG. The CSSG is designed to assist Division III conferences in assessing the overall operation of the conference and to satisfy the self-study requirements of NCAA Constitution 3.3.4.6.

b. Revoke Multidivision Classification – State University College at Oneonta.

(1) Recommendation. Accept State University College at Oneonta’s application to revoke multidivisional status for its men’s soccer program.

(2) Rationale. The committee approved Oneonta’s application to revoke multidivisional status for its men’s soccer program, noting that the institution shall be considered for active Division III membership in fall 2008.

c. Consistent Membership Penalties for NCAA Required Reports.

(1) Recommendation. Adopt noncontroversial legislation to amend the penalty for late submission of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Graduation-Rate Survey and Sports Sponsorship Institutional Demographic Report to mirror that for late submission of the financial aid annual electronic report (i.e., loss of eligibility for championships and Division III strategic initiative grants).

(2) Rationale. The committee noted the inconsistency in penalties for the submission of NCAA required reports and the difficulty for members to track on the different penalties.

d. Wells College Sports Sponsorship Waiver Request.

(1) Recommendation. Grant a sports sponsorship waiver to Wells College as the institution transitions from a single-gender institution to a coeducational institution. The waiver shall apply until fall 2008.

(2) Rationale. The committee approved a sports sponsorship waiver request from Wells, which is a single-gender institution transitioning to a coeducational institution. The committee noted the institution submitted a satisfactory action plan to add five sports for the newly admitted gender.

2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

a. NCAA Executive Committee Working Group to Study Membership Issues. The committee discussed the referral of 2006 Convention Proposal No. 12 to the NCAA Executive Committee. The committee will not have direct representation on the Executive Committee’s working group but will forward membership growth recommendations to the working group. The working group’s final report is due at the 2007 Convention, noting a practical deadline of summer 2006 so the membership has a chance to submit related proposals in accordance with the July 15 legislative deadline. The committee expressed nonsupport of Proposal No. 12 as written and forwarded the following options for the working group’s consideration:

(1) Consider further limitation on the provisional class size of six to better match the attrition of Division III (one or two institutions per year);

(2) Consider tightening the standards applied to exploratory and provisional members to further limit which institutions may begin the process. It was noted that historically, the provisional approach has been to forward all institutions that meet basic membership requirements. It was suggested that a more holistic review be given to entering institutions to assess readiness to comply with the philosophy statement and all requirements (over basic membership minimums) and to determine a rank order for institutions to enter the program. Additional ranking criteria could include sponsorship by active conferences or location in an area that needs or can support new members. Further, standards for provisional applicants could be strengthened to require compliance with the five- (six) sport/three-season requirement at the time of application, compliance with minimum contest and participant minimums in the first year of provisional

membership and/or a year-one submission of the financial aid annual electronic report;

(3) Review the long-term divisional structure in the NCAA, noting the 2004 Future of Division III survey results where the Division III membership opposed subdivision;

(4) Review resource issues in Division III to determine if there is an optimal size of the Division. This review should consider the division’s annual revenue guarantee of 3.18 percent of the NCAA budget, as well as national office programs and services. This review should consider the actual cost to the division of each member (and each additional member) and the most appropriate championships structure for the division based on its philosophy statement. The committee noted that this issue was probed in the 2004 membership survey where overwhelming support of the current championships structure was expressed;

(5) Consider the changing demographics in the United States and related trends in higher education (e.g., the increased number of four-year colleges, increased enrollment at existing colleges and single-gender institutions transitioning to coeducational);

(6) Consider more aggressive screening of active members for their commitment to the Division III philosophy statement and meeting all membership and legislative requirements. It should not be assumed that all active members should be allowed to stay in the division at the expense of potential new members who may be a better fit for Division III; and

(7) Consider raising membership dues as a way to address any constraint on Division III resources and services and as a way to pursue long-term options to address membership issues. [The committee noted the discrepancy between conference and NCAA dues.]

b. Review Convention Provisional and Reclassifying Member Education Session. The committee will continue to require a Convention education session for provisional and reclassifying athletics directors. This session will be conducted Sunday morning prior to the Division III issues forum and should include fresh material during each year of a four-year rotation so that an institution does not hear the same program twice. The issue to require chancellor or president attendance will be decided at the June in-person meeting.

c. Provisional and Reclassification Program/Process Issues.

(1) Four-Year Provisional and Reclassifying Waiver Process. The committee reviewed the revised waiver provision in Constitution 3.6.1.1.1.1 to show the updated language requiring submission of the preliminary program assessment with the waiver request. Further, the committee considered a letter from the University of Texas at Tyler informing the committee that the institution plans to submit a request to establish a waiver provision for year four of the program. After a discussion of the provisional membership process, the committee reaffirmed its original position about the value of two consecutive years of full compliance prior to the verification year and that the only waiver provision will be for those institutions meeting waiver requirements at the end of year two.

(2) Exploratory Year -- Strategic Plan Requirement. The committee discussed the Division I requirement for submission of a strategic plan for all exploratory institutions. The committee noted the value in the strategic plan requirement to ensure that the institution is more likely to meet membership requirements in year one. The committee will title this “membership viability statement” and include it with the application for provisional membership and include as a component in the curriculum for the exploratory meeting.

(3) Sports Sponsorship Requirements -- Prior to Year One. The committee discussed the impact of the “membership viability statement” on improving sports sponsorship performance of provisional members. Further, the committee considered the value of elevating provisional membership standards (including sports sponsorship prior to the start of year one) and then shortening the four-year program. This item is included in the committee’s recommendations to the Executive Committee Working Group to Study Membership Issues. Increased requirements should also include meeting contest and participant minimums earlier in the program. It may be helpful for the working group to understand average squad size for individual sports to assess trends across regions or sports. The committee noted that increased sports sponsorship at the time of application and earlier requirements for meeting contest and participant minimums should be included with the 2006 Convention Proposal No. 12 recommendations.

(4) Mount Mary College -- Year Three Preliminary Program Assessment. The committee reviewed Mount Mary’s program assessment and requested that Mount Mary address several issues related to the faculty athletics representative, governance and institutional control, recruiting and admissions and academic eligibility.

The committee also recommended that Mount Mary consider the following: (1) increasing its overall number of student-athletes; (2) using compliance software (e.g., NCAA Compliance Assistant internet, Peoplesoft); (3) adding visits or involving student-athletes in hosting prospects; and (4) including compliance responsibilities in the job descriptions and evaluations for nonathletics employees.

(5) University of Texas at Tyler -- Year Three Preliminary Program Assessment. The committee reviewed Texas at Tyler’s program assessment and requested the Texas at Tyler address the following issues:

(a) Governance and institutional control – submit policy or process for investigating and reporting NCAA violations; and

(b) Financial aid – submit written procedures to ensure consistent financial aid packaging for students and student-athletes.

(6) Presentation College Request for Additional Week in Basketball Season. The committee considered a request by Presentation College to allow its basketball team to engage in a 20^th week of athletically related activity to accommodate the United States Collegiate Athletic Association national championship. The institution stated the 2006 event was moved back one week from its normal date and the institution was not aware of this date change in time to adjust its practice schedule. The committee discussed the October 11 timing of notification to the institution, the Division III philosophy statement regarding emphasis on regular-season competition and related enforcement provisions if an active member institution were to exceed its playing season by one week. The committee agreed to permit Presentation to conduct a 20^th week of the 2005-06 basketball season, conditioned on the institution conducting a 17-week season for the 2006-07 year (in accordance with the standard two-for-one penalty for Bylaw 17 violations). Further, the decision letter to the institution will include the language from the philosophy statement describing the Division III commitment to place primary emphasis on regional in-season competition and conference championships.

(7) Reclassifying Institution – Application with Delayed Starting Date. The committee considered an anonymous request by an NCAA Division I institution that is considering reclassification to Division III. The Division I institution requested it be allowed to apply for reclassification prior to the June 1, 2006, deadline in the membership moratorium and then delay its start of the reclassification program until June 1, 2007. The committee agreed the institution should be given this opportunity, as the moratorium was designed to accommodate all institutions that decided to reclassify by the June 1, 2006, deadline.

(8) Division III Opponents – Years Three and Four Reclassifying Institution. The committee was informed that the Division III Championships Committee will now consider reclassifying institutions as Division III opponents during years three and four of their process.

d. Division III Strategic Plan. The committee reviewed its initiatives and implementation progress as noted in the Division III Strategic Plan. In its review, the committee discussed education of Division III coaches. The committee discussed the value of the coach’s rules test and that provisional members are required to take the test. It was also suggested that a coach-targeted chapter be added to the “Getting in the Game” CD ROM. This chapter would highlight key bylaws for coaches to understand. The memorandum accompanying the CD ROM will highlight the educational resources the NCAA produces for coaches (e.g., rules test, pocket recruiting guide, Division III Web site).

e. Regional Rules Seminars -- Format for Division III Sessions. The committee reviewed the format for Division III programming at the 2006 NCAA Regional Rules Seminars, noting the following dates and sites for the 2006 seminars: May 14-16 in San Diego, California; and June 4-6 in Dallas, Texas. Division III sessions will encompass a half day Sunday and a full day Monday at each of the two locations and the Dallas site will include the summer forum of National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators (NADIIIAA) as well as the Division III commissioners’ meeting, June 3-4-.

(1) Division III Sessions. The 2006 session topics include: playing and practice seasons, recruiting, camps and clinics, eligibility and transfers, financial aid, using LSDBi, newly adopted legislation and governance issues and an open question and answer session (to include a panel discussion on any rules or governance topics).

(2) NADIIIAA Summer Forum. It was noted that Ms. Hoffman serves as the committee liaison to NADIIIAA for the educational session to be held in conjunction with regional seminars. The governance structure is awaiting a plan for this session from NADIIIAA. Session ideas discussed at the meeting included impact of membership growth issues, communication and education for coaches and compliance system best practices.

f. Division III Strategic Initiatives Grant Program. The committee received an update regarding provisional institutions and allocation of Division III grant dollars under the new conference-based program, effective 2006-07. Provisional institutions will not count towards the size of the conference (which determines its total grant dollar allocation from Division III) but may receive funds if a conference decides to share its resources with a provisional or reclassifying institution.

g. NCAA Division III Convention Planning Subcommittee. Mr. Mandel was assigned as the Membership Committee representative to the Convention Planning Subcommittee.

h. NCAA Membership Demographic Data – March Update. [Attachment B].

Committee Chair: William Mandel, Western New England College

Staff Liaisons: Ellen Ferris, Membership Services

Leah Nilsson, Membership Services

Susan Peal, Membership Services

NCAA

DIVISION III

CONFERENCE SELF-STUDY GUIDE (CSSG)

NCAA Constitution 3.3.4.6 requires that member conferences conduct a comprehensive self-study and evaluation of their intercollegiate athletics programs at least once every five years, using the Conference Self-Study Guide. Once the self-study is completed, the Notification of Completion Form must be signed by designated conference administrators indicating the date of completion and forwarded to NCAA membership services staff. Note: The completed Conference Self-Study Guide is to be retained on file with the conference office and made available for examination on request by authorized representatives of the Association.

Questions or comments should be directed to Susan Peal at speal@ncaa.org

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction to the Conference Self-Study Guide......................................................................... 3

I............. Conference Purpose, Philosophy and Attributes............................................................ 5

II........... Institutional Personnel Involvement............................................................................... 5

III.......... Conference Organization and Operation........................................................................ 6

IV.......... Conference Accountability and Control.......................................................................... 7

V........... NCAA Involvement......................................................................................................... 7

VI.......... Sportsmanship, Ethical Conduct and Diversity.............................................................. 7

VII........ Student-Athlete Inclusion and Development.................................................................. 8

Notification of Completion of Conference Self-Study................................................................... 9

Introduction to the Conference Self-Study Guide

The NCAA Division III Conference Self-Study Guide (CSSG) is designed to assist Division III conferences in assessing the overall operation of the conference and to satisfy the self-study requirements of NCAA Constitution 3.3.4.6. On completion of the CSSG, the conference is required to submit to the NCAA membership services office the Notification of Completion Form (which accompanies the self-study guide) signed by the chancellor or president, conference executive and other designated senior administrators, as well as indicating the date of completion. The completed CSSG is to be retained on file with the conference office and made available for examination on request by authorized representatives of the Association, including the NCAA Division III Membership Committee. Failure to submit the Notification of Completion Form by the deadline may result in the conference's loss of Division III strategic initiative funding. All new conferences must forward a copy of the completed CSSG to the NCAA membership services staff at the conclusion of the initial year of conference membership. Completion of the CSSG is required at least once every five years.

The CSSG is not meant as a substitute for the NCAA Division III Manual or other NCAA or conference publications containing the rules governing intercollegiate athletics. Rather, its intent is to:

1. Provide a periodic review of conference policies to ensure sound conference operations in accordance with the Division III philosophy and the conference-based components of the strategic plan;

2. Involve senior-level administrators in a review of conference operations that can enhance their knowledge of how their athletics conference relates directly to their institution;

3. Familiarize senior-level administrators of Division III conferences to the conferences strengths and weaknesses; and

4. Identify specific areas in Division III athletics programs that reinforce appropriate current practices and/or identify areas that may require further attention based on conference philosophy and operations.

The CSSG should be coordinated by conference personnel in a manner that is appropriate and applicable to the conference. The CSSG should be completed with an intent that adequately represents all institutional perspectives. The study should include broad constituent participation and be provided sufficient time and resources to gather all information called for by the CSSG.

A committee comprised of chancellors or presidents and other staff (including, but not limited to, conference executives, senior administrators with athletics oversight, faculty athletics representatives, directors of athletics, senior woman administrators, coaches, sports medicine personnel, sports information personnel and student-athletes) should be included in the completion of the CSSG. Following this initial study, the committee may wish to perform periodic follow-up checks using the entire instrument or selected sections that relate to specific areas of concern.

Conference committees also may find it useful to develop a written action plan that addresses areas of concern or specific initiatives identified during the self-study.

There are no “right” or “wrong” answers to the questions included in the CSSG. Rather, the focus will be on identifying key issues of importance to all conferences, encouraging and ensuring that dialogue occurs regarding those topics.

Conferences are encouraged to circulate the CSSG among its member institutions and establish dialogue on issues of importance.

Use of Outside Consultants

Conferences may wish to involve outside consultants in the self-study process. Should a conference involve outside consultants, the functions of these individuals or agencies should be limited to data collection and organization of the self-study process. In such cases, it is understood that the self-study remains the responsibility of the conference to examine its own program and generate the substance of the self-study guide. In no way should the balance of responsibility for the study shift from internal to external personnel.

To receive further information or to submit comments regarding the CSSG, please contact Susan Peal, NCAA membership services at 317/917-6222.

I. Conference Purpose, Philosophy and Attributes

1. Conference Philosophy. Does the conference have a conference-wide philosophy? What is it?

2. Institutional Missions. What are the academic missions of the conference’s member institutions? How do the missions affect the implementation of the conference philosophy, conference policies and the administration of the conference?

3. Academic Profile of Member Institutions. What are the academic profiles of the conference’s member institutions? How do the profiles affect the implementation of the conference philosophy, conference policies and the administration of the conference?

4. Geographic Proximity. What role does geographic proximity play related to conference membership and policy? How does the conference account for geographic proximity in scheduling events (e.g., contests, conference meetings)?

5. Athletics Profile of Member Institutions (e.g., sports programs; resource allocations). How similar or different are the athletics programs of member institutions and how does this affect conference policy and administration?

6. Institutional Profile of Member Institutions (e.g., private, religious). How similar or different are the institutional profiles of member institutions and how does this affect conference policy and administration?

II. Institutional Personnel Involvement

How are the following constituents involved in conference governance and administration? Do these constituents play an active role in conference governance? Are these constituents involved in determining conference policies?

1. Chancellor or President.

2. Senior Administrator with Athletics Oversight.

3. Director of Athletics.

4. Senior Woman Administrator.

5. Faculty Athletics Representative.

6. Coaches, Sports Medicine and Sports Information Staff.

III. Conference Organization and Operation

1. Conference Office Structure. How is the conference office structured? What type of organizational structure is in place? What resources are provided for the conference office operation? What are the core responsibilities of the conference office?

2. Governance Structure. What groups are formally represented in the conference governance structure? How are issues discussed? Does a conference operation or organizational chart exist? How often does the governance structure meet (e.g., presidents and chancellors)?

3. Membership Process. What is the conference policy and process when an institution joins the conference and the policy and process when leaving the conference?

4. Professional Development. Do conference office personnel attend professional development opportunities sponsored by national associations (e.g., NCAA, NACWAA, NACDA, COSIDA)? Do conference office personnel attend the NCAA Regional Rules Seminar? How is professional development funded?

5. Technology. How does the conference address technology? Does it implement technology advancements to enhance communication and improve services with its conference member institutions and the NCAA?

6. Media Relations. Does the conference promote its events and activities to maximize exposure and interest? What is the conference philosophy regarding event promotion? Does the conference actively promote the Division III identity?

7. NCAA Division III Strategic Initiative Grant Program. Has the conference developed a policy for allocating the strategic initiative grants that has broad constituent involvement? Are the conference policies for access and distribution of funds reviewed on an ongoing basis? How does the conference determine and administer educational programs and services to best meet its needs and support the goals of the Division III strategic plan?

8. Scheduling. Do you have a conference scheduling policy? If yes, does the policy ensure that your member institutions are following membership and championship selection criteria? Are scheduling policies equitable for men’s and women’s sports?

9. Officiating. Do you have a designated officiating assigner for the conference? Is there a conference official that has the authority to oversee the assignment of officials and evaluate their performance? Are officiating assigners equitable for men’s and women’s sports?

10. Championship Oversight. Are you conducting conference championships? How do you ensure that student-athletes are given the opportunity to compete in a conference championship that provides them with an overall rewarding championship experience?

11. Communication. Do you have an established system or process to communicate with all key constituent or governance groups (e.g., list serve, phone list)? What is the conference philosophy regarding communication initiatives? What role does the conference office pay in this process?

IV. Conference Accountability and Control

1. Rules Compliance. What role does the conference play related to rules compliance? Does the conference review its systems and services for rules education and monitoring/enforcement to assist its member institutions to comply with all applicable conference and NCAA rules and regulations?

2. Financial Aid Reporting Process. Does the conference share information from institutional financial aid reports? If yes, how is the process conducted?

3. Other Reporting. Does the conference share other reports and/or data (e.g., EADA) among member institutions?

4. Fiscal Policies and Stability. Is the conference administered with prudent management and fiscal policies to ensure financial stability? How often are conference fiscal policies and procedures reviewed to ensure future financial stability for the conference?

5. Budget and Audit Process. How is the conference operational budget established? Do conference policies require that all expenses and revenues associated with the operation of the conference be audited at least annually?

V. NCAA Involvement

1. NCAA Leadership. What role have conference members played in the NCAA governance structure? What role should they play? Does the conference actively nominate presidents or chancellors, faculty and athletics administrators to fill vacancies on Association-wide and Division III committees? Does the conference actively nominate coaches to serve on sports and/or rule committees?

2. NCAA Convention Attendance. How does the conference ensure attendance at the NCAA Convention? What is the conference philosophy regarding involvement in the governance structure, including voting at the Convention? How is the conference vote on legislative proposals developed? Who provides input and who has final authority?

3. Other NCAA Events. Are athletics staff members encouraged to attend NCAA sponsored events (e.g., Regional Rules Seminars, Gender-Equity Issues Forum) for professional development?

VI. Sportsmanship, Ethical Conduct and Diversity

1. Citizenship/Leadership/Sportsmanship. Does the conference actively encourage all student-athletes, coaches and fans to respect each other, practice civility, encourage teamwork, appreciate differences and understand citizenship responsibilities? If yes, describe how.

2. Conference Sportsmanship Statement. Does the conference have a sportsmanship statement or policy? How is the sportsmanship statement or policy administered at athletics events? How are member institutions assuring sportsmanship education with their athletics staff, student-athletes and fans?

3. Diversity. What is the conference commitment regarding gender and ethnic diversity? Is it consistent with the NCAA’s legislative principles and the Division III Philosophy?

VII. Student-Athlete Inclusion and Development

1. Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC). Does the conference SAAC have a philosophy and mission statement? If yes, what is it? Is the conference SAAC active? What are its primary areas of focus? Does it represent the concerns and ideas of the conference's student-athletes and is its reporting structure consistent with student-athlete well-being?

2. Academic Performance of Student-Athletes. Does the conference measure the academic success of its student-athletes? How is success measured? Does the conference compare the academic performance of student-athletes with students in general?

3. Championships/Awards/Recognition. Does the conference provide student-athletes with appropriate championships opportunities and recognition? Are these programs consistent with the division's commitment to student-athlete well-being, the philosophy that athletics is an integral part of the total educational experience and the philosophy that primary emphasis shall be on regional in-season competition and conference championships?

4. NCAA Student-Athlete Regional Leadership Conference. How does the conference ensure student-athlete participation at the NCAA Student-Athlete Regional Leadership Conference? Does the conference play a role in encouraging student-athletes to attend the leadership conference? Does the conference play a role in ensuring participation at the NCAA National Leadership Conference?

Notification of Completion

of

Conference Self-Study

This form is to be returned by the conference executive on completion of the conference's self-study required at least once every five years in accordance with NCAA Constitution 3.3.4.6 Please note that only this form, not the completed self-study document, is to be returned to the NCAA national office. The completed self-study document and supporting documentation are to be retained on file with the conference office and available for examination on request by an authorized NCAA representative.

This is to certify that

_____________________________________________________________________________

(Conference)

has completed a comprehensive self-study and evaluation using the Conference Self-Study Guide in accordance with the provisions of Constitution 3.3.4.6 and that a conference plan to correct areas determined to be program weaknesses will be implemented and placed on file with this study. It is understood that a report of the self-study and supporting documentation are available for examination on request by an authorized representative of the NCAA.

_______________________________________ ______________________________

Printed Name of Designated Signature

Conference Chancellor or President

________________________________________ ______________________________

Printed Name of Conference Executive Signature

________________________________________ ______________________________

Printed Name of Designated Signature

Conference Director of Athletics

________________________________________ ______________________________

Printed Name of Designated Signature

Conference Senior Woman Administrator

________________________________________ ____________________________________

Printed Name of Designated Signature

Conference Faculty Athletics Representative

________________________________________ ____________________________________

Printed Name of Designated Student-Athlete Signature

Advisory Committee Representative

Date CSSG was completed: ______________________________________________________

Names and titles of individuals on the self-study committee (please note chair):

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Did your institution use an outside