San Francisco Airport Westin Hotel - Millbrae, CA

The meeting was called to order by chair Bruce at 7:00 p.m.

1. Approval of minutes of November 2-3, meeting

It was VOTED (20-0-0)

"to approve the minutes of the November 2-3 meeting as distributed."

2. Explanation of meeting procedures

Dawson reviewed the materials in the binders provided to the SAAC members. She reminded the group that these binders need to be brought to every SAAC event as materials in the binders will be used at each meeting. She noted that the Life Skills contact on each campus received all updates and changes to the binders throughout the year. She also noted the it is importance of good record keeping for reference of future representatives.

The structure of the Pac-10 Conference and the method of processing recommendations from the Pac-10 SAAC was reviewed. In addition to being used by the Pac-10's NCAA SAAC representative, Pac-10 SAAC recommendations are put on the agenda of each of the Pac-10 Council subgroups (faculty athletics representatives, athletics directors, and senior woman administrators), to be acted on at Council meetings. In that way, Pac-10 student-athlete perspective is communicated to both institutional and Conference administrators. The Pac-10's representatives on the NCAA Management Council and Cabinets use the positions established at the Council meetings to guide their actions at their various meetings.

SAAC members were asked to provide Johnson or Dawson with any changes to the information on the membership roster.

Dawson reviewed Robert's Rules of Order, noting that all Conference meetings use these rules. She stressed that the chair must recognize a member before he/she is allowed to speak, and explained the three options of voting (yes, no, abstain). She informed the group that meeting minutes would be distributed after each meeting.

Johnson explained the Pac-10 list serve, which is an easy way to communicate with other members of the SAAC. SAAC members were encouraged to sign up for the list serve, since it was expected to become an important tool for communication for the SAAC.

3. Review of approved Pac-10 SAAC format

Bouton reviewed the mission statement and the approved structure of the Conference SAAC, which were included in the meeting materials. Dawson noted that these documents were developed by student-athletes who had attended previous Pac-10 Student-Athlete Forums. Changes to the approved format, if desired, could be made by action of the the current SAAC. Bouton noted that those who attended the fall meeting voted to have co-chairs and co-vice chairs on the Executive Committee. The final two members of the Executive Committee were to be elected at the conclusion of the April SAAC meeting.

4. Discussion of meeting attire

Dawson addressed the issue of dress at each of the SAAC meetings. noting that business casual is typical attire at Pac-10 meetings. While more formal attire might contribute to a more serious and businesslike meeting atmosphere, it was opined that business attire is uncomfortable and the student-athletes would be more comfortable in jeans and sweats. The group decided to take no action on this issue and leave choice of attire at the discretion of the individual members.

5. NCAA SAAC Report

Aguirre gave a brief history of the NCAA SAAC, which was designed to give a voice to student-athletes. One of its primary goals is to formulate positions on legislative issues which affect student-athletes. Having a standing Pac-10 SAAC would enable him, and future Pac-10 NCAA SAAC representatives, to more accurately reflect the feelings of Pac-10 student-athletes.

Aguirre gave a brief description of his tenure on the NCAA SAAC, which was to end July, 2003. He urged those in attendance to consider serving on the NCAA SAAC, and to contact him if anyone desired more details.

A brief discussion of prominent NCAA SAAC issues followed, starting with the NCAA Regional Leadership Conferences. The Regional Leadership Conferences, approved in January, 2003 had been an important NCAA SAAC issue because they increased leadership development opportunities for student-athletes.

Aguirre also addressed the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund (SAOF), money from the NCAA's CBS television contracts which is being distributed to member institutions through their conferences and is intended to directly benefit student-athletes. Although the funds were to become available in the 2003-04 academic year, there was not yet agreement on how the money could be spent. Pac-10 SAAC members wished to monitor the uses of this fund in the Conference.

The NCAA SAAC has established ad hoc subcommittees of men's basketball and football student-athletes, to ensure that the perspective of those sports is known. The group will meet by conference call to discuss issues including recruiting ethics, and the use of female hosts on campuses recruiting visits.

Aguirre then solicited on issues which were to be discussed at the NCAA SAAC meeting the next weekend. The first issue was "paying" student athletes. The consensus of the SAAC members was that increasing the NCAA financial aid limits to meet the cost of attendance was the better option. Reasons given included the belief that paying athletes diluted the purity of the game; the belief that a student-athlete's main focus should be on obtaining an education, not on pay for participation in athletics; and concern about the added financial stress placed on athletic departments and widening the gap between large and small schools.

The second issue was the concept of requiring institutions to commit to multiyear financial aid contracts, instead of specifying annual contracts. Arguments against this change included loss of coaches' flexibility to take scholarships from those who are not following team rules, and decreasing the opportunity for walk-ons to earn scholarships. While there was not wide support for changing to multiyear contracts, establishing a renewal date closer to the end of the sport's season (rather than the existing July 1 deadline) was desired.

The third issue was allowing student-athletes to have five, rather than four, years of eligibility. This was driven by the fact that statistics show that most students take five years to graduate from college. Overall, the group did not agree with this concept and felt that the standards should remain the same. Reasons included the additional physical stress in some sports (e.g., gymnastics) which might discourage college-age students from competing at all, as well as limiting opportunities for incoming freshmen.

The fourth issue was the advisability of allowing institutions to pay for summer school before a student-athlete's freshman year. There was general support for the idea, because the opportunity for freshmen to get acclimated to college was viewed as positive, as well as the possible increase in academic performance by those students. Downsides noted included further separation of larger, more well-funded institutions and smaller ones; the belief that what was "allowable" would soon become expected/required by many coaches, invading the student-athlete's final summer before college; and the issue of insurance coverage for students who are "voluntarily" participating in athletic activities during that time period.

It was VOTED (19-0-1, OSU W abstaining)

"To favor permitting institutions to provide full scholarship for summer school prior to a student-athlete's freshman year of eligibility."

7. NCAA Legislative Issues

Richardson reviewed selected NCAA legislative proposals that were identified as being pertinent to student-athletes. Dawson informed the group that the Pac-10 SAAC position would be added to the information sheet distributed to the Council members. The positions established by the Pac-10 SAAC were as follows:

2003-3 Eligibility --Hardship Waiver - Allowing a student-athlete injured in any part of the season to be eligible to petition for a hardship waiver.

SAAC position: Favored 3-2-15 (ASU M, WASH W, OSU M favored, ORE M, STAN M opposed).

2003-16 Playing and Practice Seasons -- Time Limit For Athletically Related Activities -- Multi sport Participant - Limiting a student-athlete who competes in more than one sport to 20 total hours a week, rather than 20 hours per sport.

SAAC position: Favored 16-3-1 (USC M, ARIZ W, ORE W opposed, WASH W abstaining). Those opposed felt it would limit the chance to compete in more than one sport, as well cause the student-athletes to miss important practices in team sports.

2003-17 - Playing and Practice Seasons - Time Limits for Athletically Related Activities - Outside Playing Season - Limiting hours of mandatory athletically-related activity, including required skill instruction, to 20 hours a week with two days off per week mandatory.

SAAC position: Favored 16-1-3 (STAN M opposed; ARIZ M, CAL M, WASH M abstaining).

2003-23 -- Financial Aid - Countable Financial Aid - Team Limits - To allow student- athletes in equivalency sports receiving athletic scholarships to receive academic or need-based aid which does not count against the team limit.

SAAC position: Favored 16-2-2 (USC M, STAN M opposed, WSU M, WSU W abstaining)

There was some concern that some institutions might gain an advantage by moving athletes off athletic aid to institutional aid, and awarding athletic aid to more individuals, the consensus was that any legislation which helped financially struggling student-athletes was helpful.

Richardson then gave a brief synopsis of the academic incentives and disincentives which are being studied as part of the Presidential Reform movement. This legislation is envisioned at three levels: individual, team, and institutional. Historic rates of graduation and annual academic progress rates would be two of the measures used when applying the incentives and disincentives. The standard for comparison (institutional, all students nationally, all student-athletes nationally) was still under consideration. Examples of proposed disincentives included limiting access to post-season competition; reducing revenue distribution from the NCAA; or reducing recruiting opportunities. Examples of incentives ranged from allowing more scholarships to be awarded, and increased NCAA revenue distribution.

After discussion the issue in small groups, SAAC members made the following points: