You are here

Two-Year Governance Structure Review Ad Hoc Working Group

This review will not include the basic autonomy legislative authority and construct (i.e., revisiting the autonomy legislative authority is not under consideration).  Rather, the purpose of this review is to consider refinements and enhancements to the governance structure and legislative process.  Having experienced one full year under the new governance structure, this review shall identify improvements or modifications consistent with the intent of the governance redesign, as follows:

  1. Review and examine the process for proposing and amending legislation related to an area of autonomy, including:
    1. Whether there is merit in permitting the NCAA Division I Council to adopt legislation that restricts the 27 conferences to the same standards as adopted restrictive autonomy legislation.  This might include some process that allows Council-governance to consider adopting the more restrictive legislative proposals shortly after the autonomy conferences have adopted such legislation.
    2. Codifying the current role and recommend any possible changes to the role of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors Presidential Review Group, comprised of the five autonomy conference presidents who serve on the NCAA Division I Board of Directors.  This should include codifying its role in the autonomy legislative process.  Also, the role of the Presidential Review Group should be examined if there is any interest in the Council having the authority to review legislative concepts in areas of autonomy and recommend that autonomy legislation be sponsored (e.g., should the Presidential Review Group have the authority to ‘sponsor’ autonomy legislation if recommended by the Council?).
    3. Examine the ramifications and possibility of permitting the Council to recommend or sponsor legislation in autonomy areas, while recognizing that any such legislation would be voted on by the autonomy conferences in accordance with the normal legislative business session.  This concept for examination is also noted in item b.
  2. The timeline for submission of all legislative proposals and the impact of changing the September 1 deadline to a later date (e.g., November 1).  Included in this topic is the consideration of shared governance and autonomy legislation submission deadline, length of the amendment period; voting of some/more or all shared governance proposals in January; the number and timing of autonomy business sessions in a given year and other identified process issues that can be improved.
  3. Within the Council voting lines, consider whether the four conference commissioners who represent each of the four subgroups of Division I should have a vote in subdivision only matters.  For example, when a vote is Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) only, should the two FBS (autonomy and nonautonomy) commissioners have a vote?  And, if so, how does that impact the weighted voting structure?  Additionally, if such subdivisional voting lines are amended, should other changes be considered such as whether student-athletes or faculty athletics representatives should have a vote(s) (e.g., in football-only matters)?
  4. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors Steering Committee on Governance report states, “Further, the system of Council governance correlates with the autonomy system in terms of these shared principles in the following areas:While the areas of health and wellness and time demands shall remain areas of autonomy, this governance review shall consider and make process recommendations that could result in Council governance having input in these two areas as well as the opportunity to consider or adopt legislation adopted by the autonomy conferences in these areas.
    1. Health and Wellness – All schools and conferences are committed to doing everything possible to support health, safety and well-being of their student-athletes.
    2. Time Demands – All schools and conferences are committed to reducing time demands on student-athletes wherever possible.  The NCAA rule is to be considered a baseline, but all are free to impose stricter rules.”
  5. It has been noted the Council has a significant workload in this new structure.  Some have expressed concern regarding the sustainability of this high level of work product by the volunteer members who serve on the Council and its substructure bodies.  This review shall consider:
    1. How to best ensure progress can be made on the Division I agenda given the enormous time demands placed on Council members.
    2. Is the Council organized in a manner that it can successfully deliver the robust strategic agenda of the division?
    3. What can or should be done to develop the next generation of Council leaders to help ensure sustainability of the structure?
  6. Where there have been questions or varying perspectives about elements of the governance structure, authority or legislative process, those issues shall be clarified and codified.
  7. Other issues the Council or NCAA Division I Legislative Committee desire to consider or recommend to the Board.

Roster:

David Batson
Director of Athletics Compliance
Southeastern Conference FBS-A
Carolyn Campbell-McGovern
Deputy Executive Director The Ivy League
The Ivy League FCS
Bill Chaves
Director of Athletics Eastern Washington University
Big Sky Conference FCS
Lyla Clerry
Associate Director of Athletics, Compliance University of Iowa
Big Ten Conference FBS-A
Joey D’Antonio
Senior Associate Commissioner
Big East Conference DI
Carolayne Henry
Senior Associate Commissioner Mountain West Conference
Mountain West Conference FBS
Lynn Holzman
Commissioner West Coast Conference
West Coast Conference DI
Brad Hostetter
Senior Associate Commissioner Atlantic Coast Conference
Atlantic Coast Conference FBS-A
Lily Johnson
Missouri State University
Missouri Valley Conference  
Jane Miller
Senior Woman Administrator University of Virginia
Atlantic Coast Conference FBS-A
Mary Mulvenna
Associate Commissioner America East Conference
America East Conference DI
Erik Price
Associate Commissioner, Compliance Pac-12 Conference
Pac-12 Conference FBS-A
Brian Shannon
Faculty Athletics Representative Texas Tech University
Big 12 Conference FBS-A
David Szymanski
Faculty Athletics Representative University of Cincinnati
American Athletic Conference FBS