Ferd Lewis: Regents to discuss future and structure of UH athletics committee

A succession of University of Hawaii administrators and regents have likened the athletic department to a “front porch” for all the visibility that it offers the school.

For better or worse, it is UH’s 21 sports teams that provide the biggest connection to the populace. In a state devoid of professional teams, UH sports is the segment of the school that you are most likely to see on TV, hear about on radio or read about across various platforms.

In good times, UH sports can be a rallying point, touching emotions and drawing people who would not have otherwise set foot on campus. But on the flip side, as we were reminded during the so-called “Wonder Blunder,” the embarrassment can be felt beyond the athletic department.

It was after administrators and regents were grilled by State Sen. Donna Kim and her committee at the State Capitol during that episode that regents pledged to provide more direct oversight of athletics. That took the form of a Board of Regents Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics to keep a pulse on the many facets of athletics from academics and student welfare to finances.

Six and a half years later, with a committee that has demonstrated its worth, regents are scheduled to consider the future status of the committee today and whether to discard it to lighten their workload.

Last year, in the wake of Act 172, which required the appointed, unpaid board to reduce the number of its members from 15 to 11, regents began consideration of whether to eliminate or combine some committees.

But it would be a mistake to sacrifice a committee that works in the interest of housekeeping, especially when UH athletics is nearly a combined $55 million enterprise across the Manoa and Hilo campuses. That’s not counting the exposure it provides or additional millions committed to facilities.

Some members, including Intercollegiate Athletics Committee chairman Simeon Acoba and vice chair Michael McEnerney, have made a case for maintaining the five-member committee. But others, including former Board chairman Randy Moore, have questioned whether a separate committee was necessary when it could be combined with another committee.

Asked at the Board’s November meeting by Acoba if he concurred with the benefits of having a Board level committee to help monitor and oversee such a public program, athletic director David Matlin expressed agreement.

When the committee was first proposed by a special regents task force, it was seen as an urgent necessity because, “The moral and financial hazards of intercollegiate athletics are significant for (athletes), the team, the campus it represents and the university system as a whole,” according to the report.

As a result, the task group recommended the creation of a committee, “… that would focus exclusively on intercollegiate athletics and would serve as a portal to the board for all related issues.”

In its brief life, the committee has done that, grounding the board as a whole on what it takes to operate a major college athletic program, the potential pitfalls and emerging issues in the industry.

At UH, there is something to be said for having somebody around to keep an eye on the front porch.