An ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate stated in a recently released report that the university's Athletic Board is largely in compliance with Faculty Policies and Procedures regarding its role in oversight of the Athletic Department.
What's disappointing is the report does not go far enough in addressing the underlying problems that have been evident on the board in regards to real control over the most important decisions the department deals with.
The report states that the Board has been successful in its tasks of overseeing and implementing academic standards for student athletes. The Board's efforts on diversity and nondiscrimination also deserve notice for showing the Board is involved in issues that directly affect student athletes, according to the report.
However the report accurately points out that the Board has been lackluster in regards to major decisions such as the hiring of head coaches and senior department administrators. The full board rarely voted on decisions regarding such hires and is essentially bypassed by the Athletic Department with little forewarning, notably in the hiring of now head football coach Bret Bielema in 2005. In that instance former Athletic Board Chair Bruce Jones was only made aware of the decision by the Athletic Department after the fact.
The report recommends the Board adopt a policy of making such hiring decisions voted on by the full committee before being passed to the Chancellor. The report makes clear that such decisions are under the purview of the Board and not solely up to the Athletic Department, despite supposed claims made by some board members for speed and discretion in such decisions.
However the report illogically states that the Athletic Department can make announcements of hires before the full board votes, presenting members with the difficult position of potentially voting against a candidate that had already received an endorsement from the department.
Such a situation illustrates the key problem with the Board: some members feel it is only advisory to the department and that the Athletic Director should have discretion to make such decisions with or without Board approval. This undercuts the report's conclusion that the Board is not a ""rubber stamp,"" a valid criticism voiced by former Board member Jeremi Suri, who resigned in 2008 after stating the Board was being bypassed by the department.
We acknowledge that the Athletic Department, exclusively funded by private donations and other outside revenue sources, deserves more independence than other entities on campus. But the only way it is able to function is because it is tied to the university and the over 800 student athletes that participate in sports.
Although the report recommends increased communication between the department and the Board, the real issue is whether university athletics acknowledges the Board's authority in key decisions. We strongly call on the Athletic Board to adopt the recommendations regarding hiring decisions and to reject the milquetoast suggestion such decisions can be announced to the press before a vote takes place. Anything less than rigorous, objective oversight of the Athletic Department jeopardizes not only the board's legitimacy, but its essential role of protecting the welfare of student athletes.
