Presented 3 19 03
          Approved 3 19 03
Athletic Board
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Holmes Student Center Room #406, 1:00 p.m.

Present:  Gip Seaver (Chair), Nestor Osorio, Paul Bauer, Ron Short, Ray Dembinski, Keith Lambrecht, Ken Olson, John Walton, Brian Scholle, Marcia Dick, Ray Tourville, Joe True, Brooke Robinson, Brent Moynihan

Guests:  Sheila Berg, Athletics Business Manager; Robert Collins, Associate Athletics Director; Sandy Hafner-Arnold, Assistant Athletics Director – Student-Athlete Support Services; Dr. Kim Judson, Faculty Member – Department of Marketing

I.      Call to Order – Gip Seaver

II.     Approval of January 15, 2003 Meeting Minutes

        Ray Dembinski made a motion to approve the January 15, 2003, meeting minutes.  Ray Tourville seconded the motion.

        Having no corrections or additions, the motion was carried unanimously and the minutes were approved.

III.   Committee Reports

        A.     Budget

                No report.   The Board will address the Second Quarterly Report under New Business.

        B.     Student Welfare

                No report.   Dr. Kim Judson will make a presentation under New Business.

        C.     Gender Equity

                No report.  Paul Bauer will make a presentation under Old Business.

        D.     Faculty Athletics Representative

                Ray Dembinski and Sandy Hafner-Arnold presented an overview of the impact the 40/60/80% rule would have on our current student-athletes if the
                rule were in effect now.  Sandy provided a list of what majors the student-athletes are currently in.  The information is as of the completion of the fall
                2002 semester.

                Ray said when looking at the old criteria (25/50/75%) and the new criteria (40/60/80%), this is a front-end load proposal   With the new criteria, a
                student-athlete would be required to have completed 48 hours at the end of their sophomore year, which is quite an increase from the 30 hours under
                the old criteria.  CHANCE students would run the risk of having 19 of their hours not counting plus having to pick up additional hours.  These new
                criteria will really impact student by the end of their second year here.

                Sandy said the biggest concern would be those student-athletes with a cumulative GPA of between 2.0 and 2.5.  Because of the minimum GPA
                requirements to get into certain majors, those are the students who will have difficulty finding a major in which they can be successful.

                Ray Dembinski said there are 125 athletes with GPAs between 2.0 and 2.5 and then the others have a GPA of 3.0 and higher.  There really is no
                middle ground.  Brian Scholle asked what the point is for this legislation.  Ray explained that it was desired that the NCAA address the graduation rate
                problem in intercollegiate athletics.  Rather than addressing the specific schools’ abysmal graduation rates, the NCAA decided to raise the
                requirements for all schools.  The next phase for this legislation will be the penalty phase.  It will force coaches to be careful about the academic
                credentials of the student-athletes they are recruiting.  If there is no support system or degree access system in place, a coach could lose an athlete.

                Paul Bauer asked how the enforcement will differ between 25/50/75% and 40/60/80%.  Ray responded that there currently is no enforcement.  Paul
                then asked if there was a recommended guideline before and Ray said there were never numbers attached to this legislation but the NCAA has seen
                there was no effect before and so now they have raised the bar and every school is in the same boat.  Some institutions were meeting the standards
                but students were not graduating.  Robert Collins said those schools will still recruit the marginal athletes because they will join the professional teams.
                Ray Dembinski said if those schools don’t graduate people in the cohort, it has been suggested that they will lose a scholarship for each individual
                below a certain number or they could deny access to post-season tournaments or lose access to the NCAA revenue monies.  Ray Tourville said the
                only thing that this legislation will impact is through the punitive phase.  Brian Scholle said it seems as if it would only hurt the student-athletes in the
                middle.  Ray Dembinski said part of the response from the NCAA was if an institution is concerned about students not meeting the standards, don’t
                recruit those students.  That seems to be getting into a denial of opportunity.

                John Walton asked if compliance with this legislation is actual compliance or is it statistical compliance?  Ray responded that if the student-athlete has
                48 hours toward graduation and leaves the institution in his or her fourth semester, the institution would be in compliance.  John went on to say that it
                appears an institution could be penalized on both ends of the situation, whether a student is good or bad academically.  With respect to minority
                athletes, it seems discriminatory.   Robert Collins said it will also increase enrollment of students at NAIA institutions.  Ray added that the system is
                effective with the incoming class of students.  The students who are already here will be able to use the system currently in place.  The information
                being presented to the Board today is done so as an example of what Athletics is dealing with.

                John Walton then asked if, when looking at the statistics presented, part of the problem is the focus of NIU standards for students being in and
                remaining in certain majors.  Ray said that one way a school or university responds to this is they simply create programs where no matter what the
                student-athlete does, he or she will make the necessary progress.  John went on to say that either way, it appears the NCAA is providing two bad
                choices:  either having a negative impact on the athletes or on the academic standards.  You could doctor programs so that a student-athlete having a
                2.5 GPA gets into any major.  Ray responded by saying that decisions regarding program standards reside with the program faculty.

                Sandy Hafner-Arnold, Ray Dembinski, and Gip met with Robert Wheeler and Anne Kaplan recently to review the information and try to establish
                what the next step should be.  Presently, there are several things in progress.  A meeting is scheduled with the Council of Deans to apprise them of the
                situation and that this is an issue which affects these students.  The following week, a meeting is scheduled with the advising deans to discuss this
                information.  They are more in line with program planning so they are aware of some things to consider.   A list is also being compiled of all the “open”
                majors (those with a GPA requirement of 2.0 or better) and development of a “menu” from which students could view career or major opportunities
                which exist outside the realm of restricted majors.   Ray Dembinski said it is apparent from looking at Sandy’s it is a fairly wide representation of
                majors.

                Gip said when looking at available options, there are only two colleges with 2.0 to 2.5 GPA requirements from which to choose:  Health and Human
                Sciences and Liberal Arts and Sciences.  Ray Dembinski said unlike typical students who, if they want to get into a particular major, can shift their
                focus and get 15 – 18 hours to allow them to be considered.  Athletes do not have that option because they have a clock they are operating on.  They
                cannot take a semester or two off to increase their academic credentials.  John Walton asked if it is possible to identify incoming students as being
                at-risk in terms of academics and have an academic support program to begin working with them before they start accumulating hours for graduation.
                He explained in the College of Law, at-risk students can come in early, before school begins, and take an intense course of study which helps them
                acclimated in certain courses.  Sandy said all incoming student-athletes are prescreened to determine any deficiencies but Athletics does not have them
                come to campus before the beginning of classes to participate in something like the College of Law’s program.  Athletics does have a learning
                specialist on staff who works with students on study skills, time management, etc.

                Brooke Robinson asked how many hours student-athletes are required to take.  Sandy said in general they take 15 hours but they are required to take
                a minimum of 12 hours.  She went on to say that current satisfactory progress rules (25/50/75%) require them to take a minimum of 12
                degree-relevant hours a semester and to earn 24 degree-relevant hours between the fall/spring/summer semesters.  Once an athlete declares a major,
                anything not going toward that major does not count in the hours they are taking.

                Paul Bauer said priorities for summer school offerings have changed recently and that those priorities are established not only for the institution but
                within the departments.  Summer is the least predictable in terms of course offerings.  Sandy said the budget constraints are a concern for students
                who are considering summer school.  Students can go to community college in the summer but they need to request permission before doing so.

                Gip said the intent was to bring this information forward today to show the Board members where compliance and Student-Athlete Support Services
                are and to try to get this information out on campus on this particular issue.  A number of suggestions were made regarding who else should receive
                this information.  Gip said more information will be brought back to the Board.  Sheila Berg asked if summer school is counted in this and Sandy said
                it is just the academic year.  Summer school will be an issue because of how selective the Athletic Department is with who is awarded summer aid.

                The question was then asked of the 400 athletes, how many were special access admissions.  Sandy said she did not know, between CHANCE and
                sponsored admission but Ray Dembinski answered that probably less than 10% of all athletes were admitted through CHANCE and sponsored
                admissions.

        E.     Huskie Club

                No report.

        F.     Scheduling

                No report.

IV.     Old Business

        A.     Interests and Abilities Survey

                Paul Bauer began the discussion by thanking Dee Abrahamson , Ralph Chaplin, and Michael Coakley for their assistance in getting this survey
                administered on January 22.  Dee secured the assistance of athletics staff members and Ralph, director of Student Housing and Dining Services, and
                Michael, executive director of Student Housing and Dining Services, were kind enough to provide meals for those individuals administering the survey
                during the lunch hour.

                For benefit of new Board members, Paul provided background on the reason for administering the survey.  There are three prongs associated with
                compliance with Title IX.  The interests and abilities survey helps with that process.  Gip said legal counsel will be involved with the process in the
                future.

                At this time, the tests have been taken to Testing Services for analysis and Paul does not have data yet but when it is available, a report will be made
                to the Board.

        B.     Title IX Commission Report

                Gip stated that because Cary Groth was unable to attend today’s meeting, this report will be held over to the March Board meeting.

V.     New Business

        A.     2nd Quarterly Report

                Ray Tourville began by presenting an overview of the report.  Sheila said the recommendation that went to the fee committee has been that Athletics
                needs to look at addressing the carryover deficit so that it does not get out of control.  The athletic board budget subcommittee went to the fee
                committee but Dr. Williams stated it had come from President Peters that the carryover deficit be addressed.  The fee committee did not finalize
                anything at its meeting today and will schedule another meeting fairly quickly.  The bottom line is that President Peters and Dr. Williams both agree that
                the deficit needs to be addressed.

        B.     Student Welfare Assessment – Dr. Kim Judson

                Ken Olson began discussion by stating that Kim Judson was asked to attend today’s meeting to provide an update on her survey.

                Kim agreed at the beginning of the fall semester to conduct a qualitative survey.  She will plan to do that this coming fall.  The information Kim is
                presenting today was collected this past fall and she expressed her appreciation at being able to administer the survey.

                The survey was based on how prospective student-athletes make choices as to which college they attend.  This was a good study and unique because
                it addressed the college choice immediately after it was made, rather than after they had arrived on campus.

                The information in table 1 relates specifically to Northern Illinois University.  The top criterion affecting a student-athlete’s decision to attend Northern
                Illinois University is the level of athletic competition.  This speaks to our conference affiliation and should be recognized as something important to our
                athletes.

                Kim went on to review each of the decision criteria.  As for ‘desired major offered’, it seems that sports management is the top choice of major for
                athletes.  For ‘relationship with coach’, in talking with the athletes, a prior relationship with the coach was part of the athletes’ decision.

                After reviewing each of the criteria in table 1, Kim then moved on to table 2 and highlighted the information there.  This information is data from NIU
                and the University of Illinois combined.  Kim explained that she had defined ‘revenue generating’ as football and men’s basketball.  The athletes
                surveyed were all scholarship athletes, either full or partial scholarships.  None of the athletes surveyed were non-scholarship.  When looking at
                choices made by scholarship versus non-scholarship athletes, there were quite a few differences.  The scholarship athletes were much more concerned
                about the level of athletic competition.

                Data in table 6 showed that the level of athletic competition was much more important to males than females.  The institution’s academic reputation
                was more important to females but history of the specific sport’s success was more important to the males.  Athletic-related criteria were more
                important to the males and academic-related criteria were more important to the females.

                After having no questions from the floor, Gip said the plan now is to wait to talk with athletes in face-to-face meetings at the beginning of next
                semester when they have completed a year and see how the realities met the perceptions.

        C.     Athletic Board Structure

                Gip explained that he and Janaan had compiled a comparison of Athletic Board structures across the MAC school.  He had asked last fall for this
                same information from the MAC schools but received very few responses so he went to each institution’s Faculty Senate website and got the
                information from there.  As you look at the information, you will also see included information from the University of Iowa, the University of Illinois,
                and the University of Tennessee to provide a look nationally as to how their boards are constructed.  Additionally, there is a copy of the information
                relating to the Athletic Board from the NIU Constitution and Bylaws and also a copy of the NCAA Bylaw 6.1.2 regarding institutional control.  Gip
                also included articles from the Chronicle of Higher Education and the AAUP on faculty control as it relates to athletics and where it fits within an
                institution.  It would be a benefit to have this information as we begin to discuss the governance of this board and its relationship to Athletics, the things
                we do as part of policies and procedures, the make-up of the Athletic Board, and undertaking a review of the structure and function of the Board.

                Gip wanted to get this information distributed to everyone for their review and to begin discussion at next month’s meeting.  At that time, please bring
                forward any comments, questions or observations as to how we are structured.  Paul asked if there is a way to change the representation on the
                Board.  Gip said if that were decided, it would go through the University Council and Faculty Senate.  It is his feeling that we could be a more
                involved Board by sharing important pieces of information with the respective constituencies.

                Gip went on to say that he has tried to look at what other institutions’ boards deal with and it is all across the board.  Ray Dembinski could be a good
                resource through the other MAC faculty representatives.  Ray said one of the major issues the faculty representatives are looking at is eligibility of
                athletes.  He then pointed out that in NCAA Bylaw 6.1.2, athletic boards are not mandated.

                Gip then said we should plan to spend time at the March meeting discussing things the Board might like to pursue, are there things we should change
                or add, etc.

VI. Miscellaneous / Adjournment

        A.     Robert Collins said there was an article in today’s Northern Star about Willy Roy not having his contract renewed as head soccer coach.  Robert
                went on to apologize to the Board for hearing about this from the media but the process moved along very quickly.  Cary wants to make sure the
                Board knows that and there was no specific incident or reason behind this decision.

                The football schedule is still not firm but as soon as it is, he will let the Board know.

                Brian Scholle made a motion to adjourn.  Ken Olson seconded the motion.  Carried unanimously.

The next meeting of the Athletic Board will be on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 1:00 p.m. in Holmes Student Center room #406.  The executive committee will meet on Wednesday, March 5, at 1:00 p.m. in the administration conference room in the convocation center.