Now that the University of Hawaii has hired itself a new football coach, it’s time to go back and take another look at the issue of governance of its athletic program.

My initial interest was sparked by a statement by ASUH, the Manoa student government organization, protesting the makeup of the search committee named to pick the new coach. That led me to a letter from the chair of the Manoa Faculty Senate pointing out the Manoa campus had no representation on the committee.

The letter, interestingly enough, was addressed to UH President M.R.C. Greenwood, V-P Linda Johnsrud, and athletics director Jim Donovan, rather than to UH Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw.

That entry drew some feedback, including a copy of a draft report on athletic governance prepared for a required NCAA self-study completed earlier this year. The internal draft expressed “particular concern” over “the continued and growing involvement of system personnel in what is perceived to be campus level decision-making, management, and administration.”

None of this discussion survived into the final report to the NCAA, which simply stated that Hinshaw ““has clear and direct oversight of the athletics program.”

But the report did indicate the need to clarify the relations between the campus and system levels.

That oblique reference to the apparent clash over athletic authority brought a quick reminder from the NCAA that its rules require control of university athletics by the chancellor.

The NCAA Peer Review Team took note of the central role of the UH President’s office in negotiating the jump from the WAC to the Mountain West, and advised a move back to campus control “as soon as possible.”

The peer-review team was informed that the current arrangement of the university system head representing your institution at the Mountain West Conference was only temporary. The peer-review team recommends that your institution be represented by your campus head at all athletics conferences as soon as possible.

Indeed, the very first rule in the section of the NCAA Division I Manual on institutional governance provides:

President or Chancellor. A member institution’s president or chancellor has ultimate responsibility and final authority for the conduct of the intercollegiate athletics program and the actions of any board in control of that program. (Revised: 3/8/06)

In the case of a campus like Manoa, it is the chancellor, rather than the UH System’s president, who must retain ultimate and final authority.

And while the UH told the NCAA the chancellor is in charge, it’s hard to reconcile that with the absence of campus representation on the coach selection committee or in much recent athletic decision-making.

Several people have privately pointed to the key role played by UH Vice-President Rockne Freitas in athletic decisions.

The Star-Advertiser named Freitas one of its “10 who made a difference” for his central role in the move to the Mountain West Conference.

“All his life he has been blocking for others for the good of the team,” said UH President M.R.C. Greenwood. “He plays any role that we need him to play. For this assignment, he was my designated leader to frame and clear a path to make this happen.”

Freitas used his knowledge of intercollegiate athletics, UH background and ties with Nevada-Las Vegas President Neal Smatresk to assist in brokering a deal that will put the Warriors football team in the MWC in 2012 and most of its other teams in the Big West Conference.

Whatever else you can say, that certainly doesn’t sound like the ultimate authority was wielded by Chancellor Hinshaw, does it?

And when Freitas was named to the football coach search committee, questions were referred to Lynn Waters, associate v-p for the UH System, rather than to anyone representing the UH Manoa campus.