CURA Voting System
11 October 2017
Proposal
Change in Voting Practice for the Canadian University Rowing Association
Since its inception CURA has operated on a one vote per university structure. We have grown in many ways as an organization and our event now is the focal point for hundreds of athletes with over 20 universities represented each year.
CURA has always worked to be “athlete centred”, our current mission and vision supports this philosophy. Fairness and inclusiveness is a cornerstone in our vision statement
However, we are working with a simplistic voting system that made sense when CURA was in its infancy with a handful of schools. Today the system does not fairly represent the large organization CURA has become and it dismisses the majority of our athletes by providing unequal institutional weight relative to the athletes CURA aims to support. Currently we support a voting system where one athlete from one school is given the same voice or representation as 28 athletes at schools that attend the championship with full men and full women’s teams.
A proportionate voting formula was adopted by Rowing Canada long ago. It was adopted, as it was believed to be the fairest way for clubs to be represented based on the size of their membership.
I would like to propose CURA amend its voting structure so the organization and universities can better and more equitably represent its athletes. I believe the system that will come closest to representing the full voice of athletes is for one vote to be given for each athlete that represents a school.
As the AGM occurs after each year’s championship it would be a simple matter to hand the team’s representative a card with the number of votes a university may carry based on that year’s entries. I.e. McGill 10 women entered and 8 men they will receive votes for 10 women and 8 men. Therefore their card gives them 18 votes.
Additionally we should also not expect programs with men and women’s teams to need to vote together. Doing so can diminish the diversification of opinion that can lead to the most representative outcomes. A university with both men’s and women’s teams should be permitted to represent each gender independently with votes equivalent to their numbers of athletes entered in the regatta
Date of Submission:
December 1, 2018
Send To:
CURA Board co / Katie Bruggeling
Attention:
From:
Mike Pearce (UBC)
E-mail:
Mike.pearce@ubc.ca
Phone Number:
604-809-3183
Please outline the proposal below, including any pertinent references to CURA documents. Include supporting attachments, if necessary.
Change in Voting Practice for the Canadian University Rowing Association
Since its inception CURA has operated on a one vote per university structure. We have grown in many ways as an organization and our event now is the focal point for hundreds of athletes with over 20 universities represented each year.
CURA has always worked to be “athlete centred”, our current mission and vision supports this philosophy. Fairness and inclusiveness is a cornerstone in our vision statement.
However, we are working with a simplistic voting system that made sense when CURA was in its infancy with a handful of schools. Today the system does not fairly represent the large organization CURA has become and it dismisses the majority of our athletes by providing unequal institutional weight relative to the athletes CURA aims to support. Currently we support a voting system where one athlete from one school is given the same voice or representation as 28 athletes at schools that attend the championship with full men and full women’s teams.
A proportionate voting formula was adopted by Rowing Canada long ago. It was adopted, as it was believed to be the fairest way for clubs to be represented based on the size of their membership. Many organizations and jurisdictions use various forms of proportional voting to more fairly represent the size of their voting populous.
I would like to propose CURA amend its voting structure so the organization and universities can better and more equitably represent its athletes.
Specifically I would like CURA to consider two options:
OPTION 1 One vote for each athlete that represents their university.
OPTION 2 One vote for each crew a team enters.
E.g. University of Ottawa’s men’s team enters all 6 CURC men’s events, they receive 6 voting points. If they enter 5 of the 6 women’s events they receive 5 more points for a total of 11.
Both these systems encourage athlete participation in CUs and encourage teams to have more “skin in the game” in Canadian university rowing. This change would also align with our vision of fairness and inclusion.
As the AGM occurs after each year’s championship it would be a simple matter to hand the team’s representative a card with the number of votes a university may carry based on that year’s entries. I.e. McGill 10 women entered and 8 men they will receive votes for 10 women and 8 men. Therefore their card gives them 18 votes.
Additionally, we should also not expect programs with men and women’s teams to need to vote together. Doing so can diminish the diversification of opinion that can lead to the most representative outcomes. A university with both men’s and women’s teams should be permitted to represent each gender independently with votes proportionate to the size of their participation.
Report on CURA Constitution Clean-Up, Updates, and Proposed Changes
Prepared by: Matt Waddell, Swede Burak, Jamie Bell, Peter Somerwil
Summary
The CURA Constitution Committee was given the task of considering Mike Pearce/UBC’s proposal of a proportionate voting formula.
Please note that the committee is neither in favour of or opposed to the motion below. Instead, it was our task to provide a list of both the pros and cons associated with this proposal, so that voting delegates could seriously consider their options and make an informed decision on this motion.
All of the information in this report was presented to CURA at our Extraordinary General Meeting on Jan 24th, 2018 for due consideration. It is now submitted to CURA to be discussed and then voted upon at the Annual General Meeting scheduled for Nov 5th 2018. Anybody wishing to propose friendly amendments to this report or the motion proposed should contact:
Matt Waddell: matthew_waddell@sympatico.ca
Swede Burak: swedeburak@gmail.com
Jamie Bell: coachjamie.bell@gmail.com
Peter Somerwil: psomerwil@brocku.ca
Motion:
That Section 8.1.2.2 of the CURA Constitution be amended to read:
‘Between one (1) and four (4) votes shall be allowed to each voting member’s delegate at meetings of the members. The number of votes shall be determined on the basis of the number of participating athletes (including coxswains) that organization had at the most recent Canadian University Rowing Championships. The calculation governing this vote assignment shall be as follows:
1-6 athletes – 1 vote
7-12 athletes – 2 votes
13-18 athletes – 3 votes
19+ athletes – 4 votes’
Pros
-Proportional system allows the teams with the most participating athletes to sway important issues. This makes our voting system more athlete-centric.
-RowingCanada uses a proportional voting system based on membership numbers.
-Prevents small schools from exercising more power than their contribution to the organization merits.
Cons
-Would create swings in vote numbers according to geographical location of CURCs, since more athletes from the local area tend to race at the event.
-Schools may enter more athletes just to get votes, as opposed to making competitive decisions regarding crew readiness
-The largest teams are all led by male head coaches, so this proposal could disenfranchise female coaches.
-OUA and CanadaWest both operate with one school/one vote policies
-Athlete numbers may not adequately represent a school’s contribution to CURA, and therefore should not be used to limit their ability to make decisions on the organization’s rules.
Appendix A: Votes per School in 2015-2017, Under Proposed Motion
School
2017
2016
2015
Alberta
1
2
1
Brock
4
4
4
Calgary
3
3
2
Carleton
3
4
3
Dalhousie
0
2
4
Fraser Valley
1
0
2
Guelph
4
2
1
Laurentian
1
1
1
Manitoba
0
1
0
McGill
3
4
4
McMaster
1
3
1
Ottawa
3
4
2
Queens
2
4
4
Regina
0
3
0
SFU
2
0
0
St Mary's
0
0
1
St. FX
3
2
4
Toronto
2
4
3
Trent
4
4
4
UBC
4
4
4
UNB
0
3
1
UOIT
0
2
1
Uvic
4
4
4
Waterloo
0
1
0
Western
4
4
4
Appendix B: Original Proposal as Submitted by Mike Pearce/UBC