MEMORANDUM
TO: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Intercollegiate Athletic Committee
(Steve Brown, Darryl Sims, Vicci Stimac, Alan Saginak, Chris Jones, Lee Van Scyoc, Kelly BeisensteinWeiss, James Martine, Heike Alberts, Cory Nader, Geneva Murray, Alan Saginak)
FROM: Committee to Save UWO Soccer
RE: April 6, 2015 Decision to Eliminate Men’s Soccer Program
DATE: May 13, 2015
I. Introduction
A. Who we are.
In the days following the decision by the University to eliminate the Men’s Soccer
Program a group of current and former players joined together in an effort to reverse the
decision. Our group, the Committee to Save UWO Soccer, is comprised of alumni
representing a broad range of professional experience, as well as current students of the
University. We are dedicated to understanding the factors used to reach this decision; to
examining the processes followed by the Chancellor and Athletic Director; and to
exploring alternative outcomes through a cooperative relationship with the University
community. We embody the values instilled upon us as graduates of the University and
members of the Men’s Soccer Program. We are Titans!
B. What we are asking from the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee.
We are asking the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee to review this memorandum and to
carefully consider the information provided. We are asking this Committee to carefully
examine the process used by the University to eliminate the Men’s Soccer Program. We
are asking this Committee to act on behalf of the student athletes, past, present and future,
who are representatives of the University.
We believe the process that resulted in the decision to eliminate the Men’s Soccer
Program violated the principles of shared governance established by the laws of the
State of Wisconsin, the Bylaws of the University of Wisconsin System, the Bylaws of
the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and the Bylaws of the Intercollegiate Athletic
Committee. By choosing to forgo a thorough, collaborative, and transparent
decision-making process, Chancellor Andrew Leavitt and Director of Intercollegiate
Athletics Darryl Sims abused their discretion and violated the public trust.
Accordingly, we are asking this Committee to pursue all avenues at your disposal, as
a representative student government body created pursuant to the Bylaws of the
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, to obtain a reversal of this decision.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2015, the decision to eliminate the Men’s Soccer and Tennis Programs was
announced by the University. The Athletics Department announced that it was acting to
reduce the number of intercollegiate athletic programs in response to the proposed budget
announced by Governor Scott Walker in February 2015. Officially, the Men’s Soccer
Program will be eliminated as of June 1, 2016. The decision will affect approximately 26
student-athletes on the Men's Soccer Team, 12 incoming student-athletes, and over 300
alumni. The cuts will reduce the total number of varsity sports at the University from 21
to 19 (8 men’s teams and 11 women’s teams).
According to the announcement, the decision to eliminate the Program was based on two
documents: “University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh Intercollegiate Athletics Strategic Plan”
(Prepared for the University in 2010-2011); and a report by the University of Wisconsin
System Office of Internal Audit titled “NCAA Division III Athletics: University of
Wisconsin-Oshkosh” published on October 31, 2014.
The announcement by the University identified several factors used to determine which
programs should be eliminated:
A. Annual cost savings
B. Level of achievement the student-athletes can attain
C. Compliance with Title IX
A. Annual Cost Savings
The budget for the University’s Athletics Department, as provided by the 2014 Audit, is
approximately $3.3 million dollars annually. The University estimates that the annual
cost savings to the Athletics Department by eliminating the Men’s Soccer Program is
approximately $61,000. According to the announcement, the savings realized by the
Athletics Department will be used to “contribute to the stable funding and support of the
remaining programs, athletes and coaches.”
B. Level of Achievement Student-Athletes Can Attain
The University defined the potential level of achievement two-fold. First, they
considered whether the sport participated in a conference with a conference
championship. As of April 2015, the Men’s Soccer Program was a member of the
Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (WIAC). The WIAC requires the
participation of five teams to compete for a conference championship. Prior to the
announcement two men’s soccer teams (UW Superior and Finlandia) decided to abandon
the WIAC; leaving only three teams. Second, the University considered whether the
conference the team competed in allowed them an opportunity for an Automatic Qualifier
(AQ) for the NCAA National Championship tournament. The required number of teams
for an AQ conference is seven. As noted above, there are currently only three members
of the WIAC.
2
C. Compliance with Title IX
According to figures provided by the University, the student body is composed of 57
percent women and 42 percent men. Before cutting soccer and tennis, the student-athlete
body consisted of 42 percent women and 58 percent men. After the proposed cuts, the
student-athlete body will consist of 44 percent women and 55 percent men. The result is
a 2 percent increase in female participation and a 3 percent decrease in male
participation.
III. PROCESS IDENTIFIED BY THE UNIVERSITY
The April 6 announcement identified four leadership committees advised of the decision.
The Student Athlete Advisory Council (SAAC); the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee
(IAC); the Oshkosh Student Association (OSA); and the Chancellor’s Cabinet.
According to published media reports, and corroborated by documents obtained by the
Committee to Save UWO Soccer, the potential elimination of intercollegiate teams was
mentioned at the following meetings:
 On March 4, 2015 the IAC was advised of a possible reduction of 1-2 sports from
the Athletics Department. There was no discussion of specific sports being
targeted or criteria used for elimination.
 On March 10, 2015 the OSA Senate was advised that a reduction of at least one
sport was being discussed with the SAAC. There was no discussion of specific
sports being targeted or criteria used for elimination.
 On April 8, 2015, the Chancellor mentioned the previously announced cuts at a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Leadership Council. Both the Chancellor and
Sims answered questions about the cuts and noted that the Athletics Department
was not immune from the reality of the budget cuts.
 A public forum was held on April 8 to discuss the previously announced cuts.
Media reports indicate both the Chancellor and Sims reiterated that their decision
was final.
IV. RELEVANT STATUTES, BYLAWS OF UWS, UWO AND IAC
The system of public institutions, known as the University of Wisconsin System, was
established by Wisconsin Statute §§ 36.01-36.65. The powers and responsibilities of the
participants in the UW System are established by statute.
The Board of Regents (Board) has primary responsibility for governance of the system
and has the power to enact policies and rules for governing the system. However, the
Board must delegate to each chancellor, “the necessary authority for the administration
and operation of the institution within the policies and guidelines established by the
board.” Wis. Stats. § 36.09(1)(f). In the UW System, Chancellors are the executive
heads of their respective institutions. Wis. Stats. § 36.09(3). However, students have the
right to actively participate in decisions that concern student life or interests.
3
Specifically, § 36.09 (5) states,
The students of each institution or campus subject to the responsibilities and powers of
the board, the president, the chancellor and the faculty shall be active participants in the
immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions. As such, students
shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning
student life, services and interests.
Accordingly, students have, “the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine
and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance.”
The Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (Bylaws
of the Board) establish the more specific rules and procedures necessary to govern the
UW System within the broad framework of the statute. The Bylaws of the Board set
meeting requirements; establish officer positions and define their duties; create standing
committees; outline amendment procedures; and set rules for system administration.
Chapter III, section 7 defines the “Duties of the Committee on Student Discipline and
Other Student Appeals.” Pursuant to section 7, “[t]he President of the Board may refer
requests for hearing, petitions for review, and appeals involving student discipline or
student governance matters. . .,” to the Committee on Student Discipline and Other
Student Appeals.
Pursuant to section 7b(2) the Committee on Student Discipline and Other Student
Appeals may grant discretionary review of student governance matters when, “there is a
serious concern that the chancellor or president has abused his/her discretion or exceeded
his/her authority.” Where discretionary review of a student governance appeal is
requested, the Committee on Student Discipline and Other Student Appeals shall prepare
a recommendation as to whether the request for review should be granted and transmit it
to the full Board for action. If the Board grants a request for discretionary review, the
Committee on Student Discipline and Other Student Appeals may conduct the review.
Section 7b(3). The Bylaws of the Board, specifically section 7b(2), cite to Board of
Regent Policy Document 86-4, concerning Guidelines for Student Governance, as an area
of student governance matters upon which the Committee on Student Discipline and
Other Student Appeals may grant discretionary review.
The review is, “conducted upon the record of the matter created at the institutional or
administrative levels.” Following the review, the Committee is required to prepare a
recommended decision and transmit the decision to the Board for final action on the
issue.
Regent Policy Document 30-3 (formerly Regent Policy Document 86-4): Guidelines
for Student Governance (Guidelines). The purpose of the Guidelines is to establish a
set of principles of student governance which are consistent with Wis. Stats. § 36.09(5).
Whereas, each institution shall do the utmost to implement the letter and spirit of Wis.
Stats. § 36.09(5), as interpreted by the Board of Regents and Wisconsin Courts; and
4
Whereas, the fundamental thrust of § 36.09(5) is to insure that students are viable
participants in university affairs, subject to the responsibilities of the board, the president,
the chancellor and the faculty; and
Whereas, students have primary responsibility in the formulation and review of policies
concerning student life, services and interests, as defined by each institution, as well as
responsibility for the disposition of those segregated fees that constitute substantial
support for campus student activities; and
Whereas, students shall have the right to select their representatives to participate in
institutional governance, which means the students may choose the students who will be
appointed by appropriate authorities to participate in institutional and faculty committees
as determined by institutional policies and procedures and in accordance with the
interpretation of the statute by the Wisconsin Courts.
Therefore, be it resolved that, upon the recommendation of the President of the system,
the document entitled “Guidelines for the Implementation of 36.09(5), Wis. Stats.,” dated
November, 1986, be approved.
The Guidelines were created to further define student rights established by statute. The
Guidelines direct the institutions on the details of student governance.
The Guidelines establish five general principles. The first principle delegates authority to
the Chancellors, in consultation with students, faculty and academic staff, to determine
how best to implement Wis. Stats. § 36.09(5). However, the second principle directs the
universities to ensure that students are viable participants in university affairs.
Active Participation: Student input to immediate governance and policy development of
the institutions will be given serious attention and consideration. As active participants
there must be a meaningful opportunity for input so that student ideas are received and
considered before decisions are made and the meaningful opportunity must include
timely notice to students of pending issues concerning immediate governance and policy
development of the institutions. The requirement of § 36.09(5) that students be “active
participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for” their institution
also includes the provision that student participation be “subject to the powers and
responsibilities of the board, the president, the chancellor, and the faculty.” For this
reason, “active participation” will necessarily be defined to an extent in the procedures by
which the several agencies of shared or faculty governance for each institution receive
student recommendations and opinion. The mechanisms for active participation may be
several, ranging from opportunity for students or student organizations to be heard, to
non-voting representation on certain policy-making committees, to voting representation
on such committees.
The Guidelines state that each institution is responsible for determining the form and
procedure for assuring appropriate student representation. However, acknowledging that
§ 36.09(5) grants “primary responsibility” to the students, each institution is instructed to,
“identify the student agencies (organizations, committees, councils, etc.), or agencies
with a preponderance of student membership to whom responsibility can be delegated for
initiation and review of policies of a particular category.” Primary responsibility is
defined to mean that,
students have the obligation and authority to initiate policies concerning student life,
services, and interests, and to review existing and proposed policies in these areas before
5
they are amended or adopted by the other constituencies of the university.
Where there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion between student organizations and
the Chancellor over whether or not a policy or procedure meets the letter of § 36.09(5),
any of the parties may request the President of the Board review the dispute and take
appropriate action. As discussed above, the President of the Board may refer requests for
hearing, petitions for review, and appeals involving student governance matters to the
Committee on Student Discipline and Other Student Appeals.
The IAC was formed pursuant to the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh By-laws,
Governance Document 6.2 to serve as “mechanism for active participation” in student
governance matters. The identified “Charge” of the IAC is,
To establish policies and make policy recommendations to the administration and
governance groups concerning intercollegiate athletics. The Intercollegiate Athletic
Committee will also act as an advisory to the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics.
To that end, the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee By-laws state that the IAC shall,
“[c]onsider and make recommendations concerning the addition or deletion of
intercollegiate programs.”
In summary, the statutes of the State of Wisconsin guarantee students the right to
participate in the immediate governance of their university. The Board of Regents has
the primary responsibility to enact policies and procedures pursuant to those statutes.
Pursuant to that authority, the Board of Regents is controlled by a set of Bylaws that
establish how the Board will operate. The Regents have provided further guidance, in the
form of Policy Decisions, regarding the expectation that students will be active
participants in decisions that concern student life, services, and interests. The Bylaws
establish a means by which a violation of the letter or spirit of the principles of student
governance may be appealed. Where a violation of the principles of student governance
is committed by the chancellor of a university, the students may file a written appeal of
the issue with the President of the Board. A hearing may be held before the Committee
on Student Discipline and Other Student Appeals when the Committee determines there
is a serious concern that the chancellor abused his discretion. Following the appeal,
conducted upon the record created at the institutional level, the Committee is required to
prepare a recommended decision and transmit that decision to the Board for final action.
V.
THE DECISION TO CUT THE MEN’S SOCCER PROGRAM, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVE
STUDENT BODIES, WAS A VIOLATION OF UWS POLICY AND AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY CHANCELLOR LEAVITT.
As discussed above, the Committee to Save UWO Soccer, established in the days
following the University’s decision to eliminate the Men’s Soccer Program, has dedicated
itself to examining the process used to reach this decision. To that end, we have gathered
necessary information in the form of media reports, committee meeting minutes available
online, and emails obtained through public records requests. The attempt to collect,
organize, and analyze all of the relevant documents is ongoing. However, to date, we
6
have already obtained significant evidence that the process undertaken by the University
to eliminate the Men’s Soccer Program violated the requirements of shared governance
discussed above.
A. Media Reports
First, Darryl Sims has admitted publicly that the decision was not cooperative. On April
8, the day the public forum was held, Sims was asked by Fox 11 why he and the
Chancellor made the decision by themselves. He replied, “[i]t really didn’t matter which
program we were going to cut. We knew that we were going to have to cut two, maybe
three, and that was not going to be popular so we really wanted to minimize any potential
backlash that could come as a result of that.” When he was asked by a reporter with the
Oshkosh Northwestern to address alumni concerns about the lack of consultation leading
up to the decision, Sims cited meetings with several student groups as evidence that
consultation did occur. However, he acknowledged that, “[w]e never talked about
specifics, nor would we, but we let them know it was a possibility.”
B. Committee Meeting Minutes
In fact, minutes from committee meetings of the IAC and OSA corroborate this fact. On
two occasions, approximately one month before the announcement, Sims addressed the
potential cuts. However, not only was there no mention of the specific sports being
considered, there was no certainty as to the number of sports to be eliminated, or the
criteria used for elimination.
C. Email
Finally, an email obtained by the Committee to Save UWO Soccer illustrates that the
decision to withhold specific information was agreed upon by Sims and the Chancellor.
On March 10, 2015, Sims emailed Chancellor Leavitt the following:
“FYI I have been asked to meet with the OSA committee this afternoon and report on
the turf situation as well as the discussion regarding possible sport program reduction.
(No Specifics) If you have any questions or concerns please get with me at your
convenience.”
This email is an express statement by Sims that he intended to actively mislead the OSA
by providing incomplete information about the decision to eliminate as few as one, or as
many as three intercollegiate athletics programs. The information provided to the OSA
was, as illustrated by the minutes of the March 10 meeting, bereft of details. The email
from Sims to the Chancellor is an acknowledgement that, while the specifics were known
to those two individuals, they were not going to be shared with the student body.
7
VI. THE FLAWED PROCESS PRODUCED A FLAWED RESULT
The procedural flaws leading up to the decision to cut the Men’s Soccer Program are
directly responsible for a flawed result. The reasons relied upon by the University do not
support the decision. A thorough, transparent, and collaborative process would have
exposed the weaknesses in the University’s rationale and may have led to a different
result.
The driving motivation to reduce the number of intercollegiate athletic teams cited by the
University in the April 6 release was the proposed budget reductions. However, the total
savings realized by cutting the Program is approximately $61,000 out of an annual budget
of $3.3 million. According to Sims, the majority of the money saved by cutting soccer
and tennis will not be returned to the students or the university. The funds will be
redistributed among the remaining programs on an undisclosed basis to ensure a more
financially sustainable experience for its remaining student-athletes. The Athletics
Department budget has not been reduced and the overall financial health of the
University is not impacted by this decision.
The 2014 UW System Audit was cited by the University in support of the decision to
reduce the number of intercollegiate athletics teams. However, no such recommendation
is offered by the Audit. The purpose of the Audit, as stated in the Executive Summary,
was “to evaluate the design and effectiveness of the processes and controls related to
various aspects of Division III athletics at the University for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2014, including evaluating applicable compliance requirements in higher risk areas.”
To that end, the Audit identified eight observation categories and made recommendations
relative to those categories. The Executive Summary concludes, “[w]e recommend that
University and athletics department management carefully consider each observation and
recommendation in order to mitigate the potential for noncompliance in the future and to
enhance current internal control structure.”
When determining how to select the programs that would be cut, Sims described an
“exhaustive process” that took into consideration a number of key criteria. The 2011
Strategic Plan identified some of those criteria. The introduction to the Strategic Plan
warned, “. . . Wisconsin Oshkosh may very well face the prospect of reducing the size of
its intercollegiate program. If that is the case criteria need to be in place to guide that
decision making process.” The Strategic Plan outlines 44 “Target Intiatives” for action.
One of those initiatives was to “Develop criteria to be utilized for possible reduction in
the size of the athletics program.” The rationale for the recommended initiative was that
it would allow the University to manage the Athletics Department and permit the
administration to “better focus those resources on departmental priorities.” According to
the Strategic Plan, criteria could include, “NCAA participation, potential impact upon
student-athletes, revenue potential, Title IX implications and action taken by other WIAC
members.” The Strategic Plan makes no reference to automatic qualifiers or conference
championship opportunities.
8
The Strategic Plan laid the foundation for use of the criteria described as “the level of
achievement student-athletes can attain.” The diminished number of teams participating
in the WIAC means that there is no conference championship and no automatic qualifier
to the NCAA National Championship tournament. However, the Men’s Soccer Program
has always succeeded at a very high level despite being an independent program.
The Men’s Soccer Program has existed for 31 years. The team’s overall record in varsity
competition is 412-118-52. In 31 years the team finished the season with a losing record
only one time (the first year). The team has qualified for the NCAA National
Championship tournament 13 times as an at-large entry; made the “Sweet Sixteen” seven
times; the “Elite Eight” five times; and advanced to the “Final Four” four times. In last
year’s NCAA tournament field, there were only ten schools with more historical NCAA
National Championship tournament appearances than the Men’s Soccer Program. In fact,
since the inception of the automatic qualifier for conference champions in 1999, the team
has qualified for the tournament 8 times as an at-large entry. Meanwhile, the WIAC has
never held enough members to produce an automatic qualifier.
Beyond the regular season and tournament successes, the Men’s Soccer Program has
regularly competed against Division I opponents during an informal spring training
season. Further, the Men’s Soccer Program has exposed scores of players to international
travel and competition. Beginning in 1999, and continuing every third year through
2011, the team traveled to the Netherlands for 10-12 days to play against Dutch soccer
clubs. For members of those seven teams, the “level of achievement student-athletes can
attain” was unparalleled. Those experiences cannot be quantified.
However, the undeniable on-field success of the Men’s Soccer Program over 30 years,
combined with the intangible off-field experiences available to the players are compelling
evidence that the student-athlete experience for the players is “optimal”; and that funds
used to operate the Men’s Soccer Program would not be “better leveraged in other
programs.”
Finally, the University cited the need to better align the full array of programs with
guidelines set in Title IX. However, as noted above, the overall change in participation
rates by gender is nominal. Further, the gender neutral principles of Title IX do not
require that a school cut or reduce teams in order to demonstrate compliance. According
to the “Frequently Asked Questions” page at NCAA.com:
Title IX does not require reductions in opportunities for male student-athletes. One of the
purposes is to create the same opportunity and quality of treatment for both female and
male student-athletes. Eliminating men sports programs is not the intent of Title IX. The
intent of Title IX is to bring treatment of the disadvantaged gender up to the level of the
advantaged group.
9
VII.
CONCLUSION
The University’s decision to actively mislead the students, faculty and staff in the weeks
leading up to the decision to cut the Men’s Soccer Program constituted a direct violation
of student governance policies. The failure of the University to follow the laws of the
State of Wisconsin, the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System, the Bylaws of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and the Bylaws
Intercollegiate Athletic Committee constituted an abuse of discretion by Chancellor
Leavitt.
The failed process produced a flawed decision to eliminate a nationally respected and
perennially successful athletic program. The effects are real to those players who are
currently enrolled as students at the University, as well as to those aspiring young players
who would have enrolled at the University. However, the IAC and OSA are not
powerless.
Therefore, the Committee to Save UWO Soccer, and the alumni and current
students we represent, formally requests that this Committee and the OSA formally
appeal this process and the decision to eliminate the Men’s Soccer Program to the
Board of Regents.
10