Days before a review of the University of Wisconsin Athletic Board that found no problems with the function of the board is set to go before the Faculty Senate, senators are beginning to form initial opinions of the scope of the reviewing committee’s suggestions.

The University Committee, the executive committee of the Faculty Senate, charged an ad hoc committee with producing the report, which examines how the Athletic Board complies with the portion of Faculty Policies and Procedures that determine the rules of the Athletic Board.

The review stemmed from discontent with a self-review by the board after UW history professor Jeremi Suri left the board in September 2008 after making allegations of harassment and personal attacks among board members..

Murray Clayton, UW plant pathology professor and chair of the ad hoc committee, said when reviewing the board the committee paid special attention to the part of university policy that focuses on the Athletic Board’s functions, handing down three recommendations as a result.

“One of the questions we focused on in particular was whether the board is acting like a ‘rubber stamp’ — whether they’re sort of passively receiving things or whether they’re being active,” Clayton said. “Our sense was that … across the 12 different components … they really are being active.”

According to the report itself, the first recommendation advised the board to require a vote by the full board for hiring decisions.

The second asked that the board, and specifically the personnel committee of the board, make “evaluative documentation” readily available to all board members who request it. These documents include student evaluations of coaches.

The third and final suggestion recommended the board establish guidelines about the release of information by board members to the media.

UW history professor David McDonald said he thought the changes requested by the committee are “not dramatic.”

In particular McDonald said the first point simply “formalizes the procedure the board has followed since 1934” while the third point acknowledges the criticism endured by the athletic department.

“The athletic department is the one that experiences high scrutiny,” McDonald said. “The report recognizes that it’s important everybody be coordinated on communication and just reminds the board to do that.”

Donald Downs, UW professor of political science, said he thought the report shows the athletic board is fulfilling its role in the areas looked at.

Like McDonald, Downs pointed to the first and third recommendations, but said he considers them significant. He said he hopes to see the board adopt these suggestions.

“The board is representative of the faculty, and this is a university that has shared governance,” Downs said. “This is a matter of checks and balances.”

Suri could not be reached for comment, but Clayton said the ad hoc committee focused solely on the Athletic Board’s function, as was directed by the University Committee.

Downs added he was not sure how well Suri’s allegations were addressed in the report.

The Faculty Senate is set to discuss the report at its April 12 meeting.

Members of the Athletic Board declined to comment on the report.