BOTTOM UP OR TOP DOWN, Part II: RULEMAKING AND OVERRIDES

1. BOTTOM UP OR TOP DOWN, Part II: RULEMAKING AND OVERRIDES Prof. Brian D. Shannon Prof. Martha Putallaz

2. The Legislative Process – As We Knew It

3. Former Process - Overrides

4. 2011 Legislation • 5.3.2.3.1 Call for an Override Vote. In order to call for a vote to override the adoption or defeat of a legislative change, written requests for such a vote from at least 30 75…. An adopted legislative change shall be suspended upon receipt of 100125requests pending the vote by the membership.

5. 2011 Legislation • 5.3.2.3.2 Call for an Override Vote -- FBS Football-Only Issues. In order to call for a vote to override the adoption or defeat of a football-only legislative change applicable to the FBS, written requests for such a vote from at least 25 active FBS member institutions with voting privileges must be received …. An adopted legislative change shall be suspended upon receipt of 50 requests for an override vote, pending the vote by the FBS membership.

6. 2011 Legislation • 5.3.2.3.3 Legislative Council or Board of Directors Review.  Once the required number of override requests has been received, the Leg. Council or the Board … will review its legislative decision. If the decision is not changed, a vote by the active members shall take place at the next annual Convention of the Associationin accordance with policies and procedures established by the Administration Cabinet.

7. New Policies • Electronic posting of override requests with comments • Other members can view during the open period (1) who has requested an override, and (2) comments

8. New Policies • If there are enough requests for an override vote, members vote electronically during a specified window • Members cannot view how others are voting and no comments can be provided during the voting period

9. 2011-12 Application • A different top-down process • $2,000/COA legislation • Multi-year scholarship legislation

10. Results • Miscellaneous Expense Allowance (Proposal 2011-96) • 160 Override requests  Board suspended and ultimately defeated the proposal. No override vote • Multiyear Scholarships (Proposal 2011-97) • 82 Override requests  Board put the proposal up for override vote

11. The Override Vote was Close • Total members eligible to vote: 367 • 336 schools and 31 conferences • 37 (10%) did not vote • 35 did not cast voteand 2 abstained • 125 (37.88%) voted to defeat the override • 205 (62.12%) voted to support the override • Total S+D = 330 (5/8 = 206.25 members) • Override FAILED (62.5% required)

12. So, the vote was 205-125, meaning if two members had changed their votes (207-123) or if four additional members had voted (209-125) in support of the override, the legislation would have been overridden. • Two groups to consider who affected the outcome: • The Conference Offices • The Ivy League

13. Conferences Cast Override Votes Too • 3.02.3.2 Member Conference “…A member conference is entitled to all of the privileges of active members except the right to compete in NCAA championships (see Constitution 3.3.2). Only those conferences that meet specific criteria as competitive and legislative bodies (see Constitution 3.02.1 and 3.02.2) and minimum standards related to size and division status are permitted to vote on legislation or other issues before the Association.”

14. Conferences Voting Contrary to the Majority of their Member Schools

15. And, two conferences voted not to support the override even though the member schools’ vote was evenly split: The Big East and The Patriot League

16. The Ivy League Saved the Legislation • Ivy League member schools do not award athletic scholarships to their student-athletes. • Ivy League Override Votes: • 1 school did not vote (Columbia) • 1 school abstained (Harvard) • 1 voted to support the override (Yale) • 6 voted to defeat the override (including the conference)

17. Differences in Voting Processes(Ordinary vs. Override) • Schools vote as a conference (weighted vote from 1-3) vs. every member has a vote. • Members = schools and conference offices. • Majority of weighted vote needed to enact vs. 5/8 of those voting required to overturn. • Evaluating is different from overturning. • Voting not to enact something is different from voting to overturn something in place. • Conference vote vs. member vote is public.

18. The Relative Influence of Conferences Differs in the Legislative Process and the Override Process

19. Override Requests (and Comments) and Override Votes are Public Twitter Comments from the National College Players Association RECRUITS BEWARE. Top schools opposed multi-yrschollys for option 2 fire u 4 any reason i.e. injury. 'Bama, LSU & more ‪http://bit.ly/Ash96U  All 48 schools opposing multi-yrscho llys& their awful reasons listed below self-serving schools voting against $2k ‪http://bit.ly/sCqZ9h 

20. Lessons Learned • Voting matters! Literally every vote counts. • Examine the process by which your conference determines its override vote. • In this case, conferences were more supportive of the legislation than their member schools were. • All of these process issues matter. • Committee membership, process changes important • NCAA Governance structure examination coming • Make best friends with your compliance staff! !