» 1/20/13 - Social media proposal passes in DIII
» 1/19/13 - DII looks to 2014
» 1/19/13 - DIII approves sickle cell measure
» 1/19/13 - Division I streamlines rulebook
» 5/14/13 - St. Edward’s Baird builds a life around service
Management Council vice chair Karen Stromme of Minnesota Duluth addresses members during a Wednesday morning session.
By David Pickle
As Saturday’s Division II business session approaches, concerns could be emerging with an element of Proposal No. 2013-7.
That proposal would modify and generally simplify rules governing official and unofficial campus visits. The overall proposal is rather large, consuming 19 pages in the Official Notice. However, the concern appears to relate primarily to a single section that would eliminate the portion restricting official visits to 48 hours.
The Division II Manual currently devotes about one-half page to describing how to count the 48 hours and how to deal with variables such as illness. That complexity leads to a large number of annual waiver requests, which the Legislation Committee is seeking to address through eliminating the restriction. The committee also believes that few institutions have the financial ability (or desire) to extend official visits indefinitely.
The Legislation Committee has developed a “talking points” document that seeks to address some of the concerns that have been addressed. That document was distributed to the Management Council, the Conference Commissioners Association and the compliance association.
Stephanie Quigg Smith, director of academic and membership affairs, said some members have expressed an interest in dividing the vote on Proposal No. 2013-7, and she said the Convention parliamentarian has ruled that a divided vote is possible.
However, she said the Legislation Committee recommends that if a majority of delegates are concerned about deregulating the 48-hour restriction, they should vote down the entire proposal.
“It can be divided,” she told Division II Management Council members Wednesday morning, “but if a motion to divide is made, it must be proper and very specific. If it’s not, it will be ruled out of order.
“Ultimately, if the membership doesn’t want to eliminate the 48-hour restriction, the Legislation Committee would prefer for them to vote No. 2013-7 in its entirety. They’ll address the concern and bring it back for another vote in the future.”