Trust, Accountability and Integrity: Board Responsibility for Intercollegiate Athletics John Casteen, president emeritus, University of Virginia, and project director Richard Legon, president, AGB Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics October 9, 2012 Washington, DC

About AGB Mission: Since 1921, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) has had one mission: to strengthen and protect this country’s unique form of institutional governance through its research, services, and advocacy. Members: 1,250 boards, 1,900 institutions, 36,000 individuals Member Support: Consulting services, meetings, publications, research, advocacy.

AGB and Intercollegiate Athletics AGB’s initial work was stimulated by problems with college sports and KCIA’s good work in reforming intercollegiate athletics in the 1990s “AGB Statement on Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics” (2009) is the third in this area Study based on “gap analysis” comparing actual and recommended best practices

Overview Context for our work Project elements Findings and Recommendations Applications for boards

Gap Analysis Sought advice and investigated key board responsibilities in eight areas (consistent with AGB’s 2009 Statement): Policy Articulation and General Oversight Presidential Leadership Athletics’ Compliance with Institutional Standards and Mission Financial Integrity Academics and Student-Athlete Welfare Compliance with NCAA and other external regulations Personnel Communications

Gap Analysis: Some Good News Intercollegiate athletics programs in Division I institutions follow good practices and contribute to their institutions in many ways. Almost all respondents say: Athletics contribute positively to the institution Athletics and academic mission are in balance Board members respect presidential authority Board members do not interfere inappropriately Athletics programs are appropriately integrated into the administrative structure Presidents are informed of violations or investigations

Some Gaps: General Oversight 47% have a board policy on athletics similar to the one recommended by AGB, 28% have a policy with some similar aspects, and 25% have no policy. 49% say the board fulfills its ultimate responsibility for oversight and accountability for intercollegiate athletics “very well”; the other half needs improvement. 99% have programs and camps for minors, but only half (50%) have policies for protection of minors.    

Some Gaps: Finances 19% reported that the athletics department is self-supporting 26% of boards don’t receive sufficient financial data to monitor revenues and expenditures for revenue-generating sports 26% of boards don’t receive sufficient financial data to monitor revenue from media contracts, booster clubs, athletics conferences, or sponsors

Some Gaps: Student-Athlete Welfare Most boards rely on APR to oversee the well-being of student-athletes; they fall short on many other measures: 84% receive sufficient data to monitor APR by team About one-third receive sufficient data on declared majors (32%), demands on time (37%), transfers out of the institution (32%), or transfers in (31%).

Some Gaps: Compliance Reports 64% reported that the board or a board committee reviewed financial reports submitted by the institution to the NCAA (36% no) 59% reported that the board reviewed and discussed the most recent NCAA institutional self-study and certification report (27% no, 14% DK) 35% reported that board members received information that prepared them "very well" in regard to NCAA rules applicable to board members (36% somewhat well, 17% neutral, 8% poorly, and 4% very poorly)

Recommendations of the Report Three primary recommendations to governing boards from the work of this project based on: Gap analysis—survey data Guidance from advisory group Advice of experts, listening broadly

Recommendation #1 The governing board is ultimately accountable for athletics policy and oversight and should fulfill this fiduciary responsibility. As the fiduciary body of the institution, the governing board bears responsibility for establishing a policy framework governing athletics. Board must act on this authority, establish high standards for transparency and ethics, and hold itself and the institution’s chief executive accountable for the implementation of those policies Athletic policy, as defined by the board, assists administrators with regulation. Board must inform itself about the risks and challenges of the athletic program and engage in policy questions that address those issues. While the board delegates management of intercollegiate athletics to the chief executive, it must recognize its ultimate responsibility.

Recommendation #2 The board should act decisively to uphold the integrity of the athletics program and its alignment with the academic mission of the institution. Policies that define the administration of athletics programs should be consistent with those for other academic and administrative units of the institution or system. The athletics program should be functionally integrated into the administrative structure and philosophically aligned with the mission of the institution. Boards should have a process in place to review contract agreements for highly compensated athletics personnel, financial information concerning athletics, and indicators of the academic progress and well-being of student athletes. The governing board should be informed of and consulted on issues related to conference membership, have final review of data ascertaining compliance with NCAA and conference regulations, and, on an annual basis, publicly certify that the institution is in compliance.

Recommendation #3 The board must educate itself about its policy role and oversight of intercollegiate athletics.   The governing board of the institution must act intentionally to increase its collective span of knowledge concerning athletics and each board member should be aware of the standards of behavior and regulations that apply to them individually. All board members should be informed about the business and challenges of intercollegiate sports, risk assessments, pertinent NCAA and conference rules, Title IX and other federal regulations, and the progress and well-being of student athletes. The board needs to be aware of the balance between appropriate oversight and involvement in institutional policy and intrusion into management prerogatives.

Recommendations to Others System Boards Ensure colleges operate according to board policies and principles of integrity Require reporting and monitor data Presidents Act transparently Support the board in exercising its authority NCAA Recognize in manuals the ultimate responsibilities of governing boards for intercollegiate athletics

Board Oversight Why Board Oversight Of Intercollegiate Athletics Matters Define and execute mission Exercise fiduciary responsibility Hold administration accountable

Reflections It matters who serves on boards and how well board members are prepared and educated Boards can’t pick and choose their responsibilities Clear board policies and delegation both charge and enable presidents to work effectively Boards must be partners in change AGB is committed to advancing these recommendations

Trust, Accountability and Integrity: Board Responsibility for Intercollegiate Athletics The report and supplementary survey data are available at www.agb.org.