Minutes Jan 26, 2019
Canadian University Rowing Association
Saturday, January 26th, 2019
Hotel Arts, Calgary (Room TBD)
Agenda with Minutes
1) Call to Order
a) Roll Call
i) Present: Mark Laidlaw (Calgary), Zachary Lewis (Ottawa), Mike Alcorn (Guelph), Carol Love (Trent), Walter Martindale (Alberta), Mark Williams (Toronto), James Dyer (Trent), Matt Seaby (Trent), Aalbert Van Schothorst (Victoria), Mike Pearce (British Columbia), Greg Hanta (McMaster), Craig Rutherford (Vancouver City), Craig Pond (British Columbia/VP), Katie Edwards (St. FX/President), Dan Dechard (Western/VP), Dave Leger (Guelph/VP), Katie Bruggeling (Queen’s/Secretary)
ii) On the phone: Matt Waddell (Western), Amanda Schweinbenz (Laurentian), Jennifer Durward (UOIT)
b) Sufficient Members for a Quorum
2) President’s Welcome and Introduction of new Executive
3) Approval of the Agenda
ML motioned
MW seconded
4) Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
ML motioned
MW seconded
5) Business Arising from the AGM Minutes
ML: Asked about procedure for new business
KE: Explained need to email KB ahead of time
6) Executive Reports
a) President’s Report – Edwards
KE: Proposal procedure going well. Acknowledged we missed the 2 week deadline. Acknowledged sub committee’s good work. Discussed strategic planning in the future.
b) VP Eligibility – Leger
DL: Reviewed report. Ask eligibility questions early, in spring or summer, so it can be reviewed. Of 26 schools listed, rosters were submitted from 18 schools. Of the remaining 8: 3 competed and never submitted a roster
c) VP CURC- Bechard
DB: 2019 UVic 2020: Nova Scotia November 7thand 8th. First year impacted by the regulation of number of weeks between labour day and CUs (9 weeks). This needs to be added to player regulations. Widespread interest of a PSO organizing CURAs.
AV: Asked to specify what PSOs would do
DB: Answered to be determined; would not start until 2020 through.
d) Secretary/Treasurer Report – Bruggeling
KB: Proposal process good
ML: Laidlaw said process good but noted old issues from previous years have not been addressed
KE: Answered saying resubmit
ML: Asked question about priority
KE: Has not been enough proposals for that to be an issue.
e) Past President Report – Pond
CP: Thanks for regatta central feedback. Resolution is good- heritage platform. Contact if there are any more issues.
ML: Asked about unaffiliated entries.
CP: It’s possible, not sure how, email regatta central
CP: Nominations process for CU awards: working on forms and process
7) Regional Updates
i) Atlantic – Edwards
KE: Several conversations with athletic department about becoming a varsity sport; issue is other two universities would also need to become varsity.
ii) Central – Somerwil
PS: Will see what happens with university funding issues in Ontario due to new laws
iii) Prairies –Laidlaw
ML: Hosting a Mac 2by 4 in Calgary as a satellite venue.
iv) West – Pearce
MP: Working out new formats for Western CUs; draft phase
8) Committee Reports
i) Constitution – Somerwil, Waddell, Burak
MW: Reviewed report.
KE: Clarified briefer review for committee reports
ii) Rules and Regulations – Somerwil, Schweinbenz, Parkes, Love
AS: Explained process of meeting and briefer on report. Parkes not there but was informed afterwards
iii) Nominations – Pond
CP: Formal process in the future
iv) Eligibility – Leger, Hedrei
DL: Streamlining submission process; possible privacy issues. Existing deadlines may not be in regulations.
v) FISU – Pearce, Van Schothorst, Williams
DB: Debriefed with Parfitt and Brown at RCA regarding FISU. Continued excitement to include FISU in national program. Next race is in 2020 in the Czech Republic. Communicated with the new committee; transition completed.
MP: Continuing to support program. Concerns about previous year’s format. For our university students, the costs are prohibitive
PS: RCA might be proposing to host FISU in Canada.
MP: Nominating CURA winning 8s?
AV: We need have an element of control of it. RCA did a good job last time. CURA should have more control over it.
MP: FISU team not a priority at last year’s selection.
ML: 2014 the team was selected without a selection event and was successful.
AV: RCA didn’t actually select a team
MS: Something that coincides with CUs?
ML: Selection for 2014 was after 2013 CUs.
9) New Business: Proposals, Questions, Voting
a) Proposal Process:
i) Introduce Proposal (1 minute)
(1) Motion needs to be moved
ii) Proposer Review (3-5 minutes)
iii) Subcommittee Report (3 minutes)
iv) President/Executive Report (2 minutes)
v) Motion Put Forward
vi) Questions (10 minutes)
vii) Vote
b) Proposals:
Constitution – Waddell
MW: Moved
WM: Seconded
MW: Reviewed report.
KE: Executive supports acceptance
KE: proposed vote
For: All voting members
Against: 0
Abstained: 0
Motion passed.
DNS
MS: Moved
ZL: Seconded
AS: Explained and reviewed proposal.
ML: Asked about DNF.
AS: It’s addressed with RCA rules.
KE: Executive supports this proposal.
For: Guelph, St. Fx, UBC, Calgary, Trent, Ottawa, Brock, UofA, Toronto, Queens, Laurentian, UOIT
Against: Victoria
Abstained: No one
Motion passed
DNF
AS: No DNF motion proposed
PS: If someone in the A final DNF, what happens with points? Does 7thplace move up to 6th?
AS: That’s an entire new proposal
PS: Proposed DNF consistent with DNS
MP: Seconded
AS: Corrected saying it can’t come to the floor now
KE: Will be addressed in November then
AV: Can still regulate by decision together?
ML: Issue- now we don’t have a rule.
PS: Use precedent in November; no changes in position and scoring for DNFs.
Interuniversity – Laidlaw
ML: Proposed.
JD: Seconded.
ML: Situations have come up in the last 2 years where athletes are attending schools in the region of Calgary. Explained proposal.
AS: Explained report-we support more athletes attending. Not done in U Sport. Rowers should row for their university. Athletes can row single or double/pair. Subcommittee recommends not passing this proposal
ML: What is the requirement to CURA to become a university?
KE: Participate.
KE: Executive supports subcommittee, proposal not supported.
PS: No athlete has ever been excluded from CUs; provided examples. They should row as their own school. Integrated sport: it will become too gray.
WM: We did not take a young lady to St. Catharines because she’s not U of A.
PS: What school?
WM: King’s college
PS: She can row for King’s College
WM: I will let her know.
ML: So advice for this girl? Can she enter herself?
CP: Explained she can row for U of A.
CP: We’ve had this issue in the past.
AV: Does this issue go to the eligibility committee?
CP: Supports the issue if there’s a Calgary student card. Had a similar issue at UVic and UBC. Arranged for the student-athlete to row for UVic.
KE: Explained it is not allowed within our rules.
ZL: Has the rule change since the UBC and UVic?
CP: No-It was not labeled as an integrated program
PS: Where will the line be? Example classes switches, transfer rule
KE: Don’t want to race against super schools.
MA: Once we depart from athletic department signage, it makes it easier. Could be a byline from Henley. Any athlete from any post-secondary institution. Cases in gray foggy zone could come to eligibility committee.
ML: Asked if there’s a way to stop proposal.
PS: Have to vote.
For: 0
Against: All except below.
Abstained: U of A, U of C
Motion not carried
i) Eligibility – Leger
DL: Motioned
ML: Seconded
DL: Read the motion. 3 schools did not submit rosters and still raced. September 5th: preliminary roster- put down all the names you have. Do not need novice because no longer consumes year of eligibility. Is there something that could make this easier? Are there many more concerns around privacy with google docs?
KE: Deadlines need to be maintained much better.
DL: Did discuss in exec meeting, proposal for consequences non-compliance.
KE: Would like to sharpen things on our end before we start fines.
WM: Thinks it was so far out.
DL: Gives the committee time to resolve issues
KE: Yes, time for process and appeal.
CR: Are we able to add an athlete later on?
Katie E: Yes, provided they are within the eligibility rules.
ML: We don’t have to sign off?
DL: Yes, I need to update the form.
CP: Some of us do it
PS: Leave signature box there because some athletic departments require it.
DL: Needs to be in excel.
KE: Is this a vote-able? It has to be voted on.
AV: We are prohibited from using google.
DL: Remove google.
PS: I put forward an amendment that we strike google drive from the proposals.
DL: Seconded.
KE: See gaps in procedure for future- need to clarify process for new business.
For: 0
Against: All but those abstaining
Abstain: Guelph, Laurentian, & UOIT
Motion not carried.
Scoring – Pearce
MP motioned.
ML seconded.
MP: Explained proposal. Current points favour lightweights. Assumes we are looking to award the most balanced team. In 2008 we tried to make a shift to increase the value of the 8 but we have not gone far enough. Should have to boat a full team to win a championships.
AS: Only one change over the past 10 years. Committee agreed there needs to be another subcommittee struck to review the entire regatta. Let’s look forward and make sure we’re going in the right direction as an organization.
KE: Recommend don’t approve. Strike subcommittee headed by DB. .
PS: Curious why you only went part way. Because if it is athlete centered, a lot of the rationale says every athlete should get the same amount of points.
MP: Need to clarify what it means to be champion.
CP: Agreed.
Voting:
For: 0
Against: All
Abstain: 0
Motion not carried.
KE: Strikes a committee
Voting – Pearce
MP: Motioned.
ML: Seconded.
MP: Explains proposal. Strongly feels athletes are not being represented. Feels universities who are putting the most financially into rowing are not being represented.
MW: Explains pros & cons from the subcommittee report. Precedent varies depending on the history of each organization.
KE: Explained executive opinion and thoughts on a 3 year period to earn voting rights.
AV: Balance of decisions making that reflects the experience of the schools. There are already big schools at the head of the table.
JD: People may enter more events to just get more votes on the table.
ML: I don’t see how more entries makes it less competitive. We discussed how entries were down this year.
DB: A lot of different coaches with different priorities based on what they feel is right for their spot and that’s okay. Am worried about having people who are on committees, FISU, executive not getting a vote.
MP: Need to recognize there’s different levels of skin in the game. Schools attending to have a good regatta. Other schools are making major investments to compete. The uneducated piece threatens their ability to reach a championship.
KE: Tended to vote with the group when stated.
CR: Understands he does not need voice because he’s new.
MP: Lightweight 4 example
DB: We just want you to be educated. Example: I’ve got a couple kids in school and the whole area, whether or not they have children in school, gets to vote on decisions.
KE: Executive can do a better job of educating newcomers.
KB: Rich get richer and poor get poorer example. Those who are large could make decisions that benefits them. Could negatively impact small schools with regards to rules, finances, abilities to reach standards, etc.
AV: Agrees. Wants to strike a balance.
KE: Should revisit the organization’s values.
MP: Notes KB’s point. Hard to educate around emotional issues.
MS: Any set of rules has pros and cons. Might want to reflect what that looks like. Is it not simpler to say don’t vote?
KE: We can make it clear that you can abstain.
AV: I agree with MP in principle- we should have a discussion about it.
MP: They are soft options. Trying to create some balance is more important.
MP: What happens if the vote does not carry? Committee?
KE: Yes committee.
For: 0
Against All except for those who abstained.
Abstain: Guelph and Calgary
Motion not carried.
KE: Strikes a subcommittee review the voting structure.
C) New business:
MP and CP: Crew Classic will pay for the CURA winning 8s to attend. Deal is still there but UBC is not attending.
1) Adjournment