A UNC System Board of Governors committee next week will consider giving the system president and the board the power to prevent universities from changing athletic conferences, according to a meeting agenda.

The move comes as conference realignment dominates discussions around college athletics. The ACC voted last year to expand its membership despite objections by UNC-Chapel Hill and two other league schools.

N.C. State initially stood with UNC in its objection to expansion, but flipped its vote, allowing the league to add three schools — Stanford, the University of California and Southern Methodist University.

Florida State University in December filed a lawsuit against the ACC — a day after the ACC sued FSU — in an attempt to leave the conference.

The proposed policy change, which is on the agenda for the board’s University Governance committee meeting Wednesday, would require chancellors across the 16-university system to give the UNC System President, currently Peter Hans, “advance notice prior to executing any agreement which would result in the constituent institution’s transfer, removal, or joining of an athletic conference association.”

Such notice would need to include a “financial plan” associated with the proposed conference move, which the president could either approve or disapprove, the policy states. If the president approves the financial plan, he would then submit the notice and plan to the Board of Governors.

The Board of Governors could then choose — but would not be required — to hold a vote on the financial plan. If the board were to “vote down,” or vote against, the plan, chancellors would not be able to move forward with a conference move unless they present and receive approval for a a new financial plan by the president and the board.

The current policy requires chancellors to submit an annual report to their respective campus Board of Trustees, the system president and the Board of Governors containing a range of information about the athletics programs at their universities. Those requirements would remain in the new policy, but chancellors would also be required to include information about “athletically related agreements accessible to the constituent institution,” such as the “grant of rights” that governs a conference’s media rights.

If the committee votes to approve the policy, it will be placed on the consent agenda for the next full meeting of the Board of Governors in February.

Changes to previous version of policy

A previous version of the proposed policy was included on the committee’s agenda at an October meeting for information only, but there was little, if any, discussion from board members.

The new version, to be considered Wednesday, appears to increase the Board of Governors’ power over the process by allowing them to vote on the chancellors’ proposals. The previous version indicated the board could “provide a recommendation” to the universities, but did not outline a process for them to vote on the plans for realignment.

Hans told reporters after a Board of Governors meeting in November that board members at the campus and system levels “enjoy discussing athletics,” but noted at the time there was “no impending action that would cause us to move quickly” on the issue.

He said there were “some fine points” that needed to be addressed in the original draft proposal regarding “what documents can and should be shared with a wider group under the NCAA rules, under league rules, under a potential UNC System policy.”

Hans said campus autonomy over athletics “is a very wise policy that we would want to continue,” but the financial implications associated with a university changing athletic conferences could impact the system more broadly.

Hans said he wants to “ensure good decisions are being made” on the issue so as to not impact “already-high student fees on athletics,” and to avoid running counter to “the institution’s primary mission, which is teaching and research and public service.”

“Athletics is a wonderful front porch for the university and brings so many to engage with higher education. We’re very grateful for that,” Hans said. “But we want to be very prudent about the financial impacts of any such decision.”