Members of the NIU Athletic Board sounded off Wednesday about what they see as disregard within the administration for the board’s advisory capacity.

Citing past examples of committee action on athletic department matters without Athletic Board participation, a resolution was passed to confront NIU President John LaTourette over the definition of the board’s role.

Board member Gary Glenn began the discussion at the March 9 meeting, when Athletic Director Gerald O’Dell outlined parking/tailgate proposals for 1988 football games.

Glenn and others voiced concerns over the possibilities of student-alumni tailgating and parking on the abandoned track and field facility.

Board member Walt Owens—a physical education instructor—had pointed out that the track north of Huskie stadium is still used by physical education classes and the public. He said policymakers should have been advised that parking cars on the track would damage the surface.

When business resumed Wednesday, Glenn rekindled the debate.

“It’s necessary for the board itself to address what appears to be a system of bypassing, by the president on down, on our role of advising the president,” Glenn said. “It seems the past three years or so, certain areas have been shuffled off to an ad-hoc committee.”

Glenn alluded to three specific matters, which were later identified by Board Chairman Curtis Norton as being drug testing, the department’s internal review and the parking/tailgating policy.

“Are any of the rest of you embarassed,” Glenn said, “when someone comes up to you and says, ‘You’re a member of the board—what’s the deal on the parking?’ and you say, ‘Hmmm?’

“There should be a meeting requested of the president and a clarification made of the Athletic Board’s role,” said Glenn, pointing out that “the word ‘advisory’ never appears in our bylaws.”

Board member Joseph Grush moved that a delegation be sent to LaTourette requesting clarification of the board’s advisory role. During discussion on the motion, University Legal Counsel George Shur said although the board can “presume to be advisory towards the president,” the committees under scrutiny were “not initiated by the presidential office.”

After the motion passed—with Shur casting the sole dissenting vote—Shur said the contingent should be “carefully constructed” of four or five members. “No one wants the army converging upon them,” he said.