A draft of a document outlining the role of the University of Wisconsin Athletic Board is circulating among board members, pending return to a university committee for review.

The draft is the second version of a document originally released in December by an ad hoc committee. The committee was formed after allegations by a former member of the board sparked an investigation into the board’s operations.

The document defines the role of the Athletic Board and its members, aligning the power they exercise with university, the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics and state laws and regulations.

After the original draft was submitted, a letter written by UW professor and committee member Ann Hoyt was submitted to the board regarding concerns with the document.

The letter suggested there may be further concerns with ensuring the Athletic Board is in compliance with the university’s Faculty Policies and Procedures and state statutes.

The new draft does not outline a plan to change board operations. Instead, it thoroughly states how members of the board believe they are fully complying with standard procedures.

At the Feb. 20 Athletic Board meeting, Athletic Board Chair Walter Dickey said FPP must be read in the context of state law.

“We are not endorsing the policy that [FPP] be changed, but we are saying [FPP] needs to be read in the context of state law, which delegates certain authority and responsibility to the chancellor and athletic director and certain authority to the faculty,” Dickey said.

He said though the board’s practices violate some state statutes, many of the statutes have been declared unconstitutional but remain on state books for convenience reasons. In other words, they should be ignored.

When asked about specific practices that violate state law, Dickey named the Athletic Department’s methods of hiring and firing staff.

Ad hoc committee Chair David Zimmerman said some may raise concerns that the document finesses FPP concerns instead of dealing with them directly.

“Our response to that is yes, there are inconsistencies and just to be open with that,” Zimmerman said. “I’m not advocating that; I’m just raising it for discussion, because, quote, cover-ups usually cause more damage. Failing to acknowledge something that somebody else discovers later … there is some argument to just have an open discussion.”

The new draft contains several major changes.

Along with addressing the board’s belief that it complies with the framework of the university, the draft addresses concerns regarding the meeting schedule of the board.

Allegations in the fall included secret meetings and phone calls, through which it was alleged upper leaders of the board made all their real decisions.

The new draft says while decisions are sometimes made outside of Athletic Board meetings, this is only done when a decision cannot wait for the next convening of the full board.