Attendance: Judy McCrae, President; Drew Love, President-Elect; Ian Reade, Vice President Marketing; Murray Hall, Vice President Research and Development; Diane St-Denis, Vice President Programs; Barb Mullaly, Chair, Finance Committee; Sandy Slavin, Canada West; Liz Hoffman, OUA; Bob Dubeau, QSSF; Clint Hamilton, Atlantic University Sport; Jean-Guy Ouellette, Chair, CIS International Committee.

 

CIS Staff: Marg McGregor, CEO; Peter Metuzals, Marketing Director; Tanja Mackin, Director, Finance & Administration; Sheila-Ann Newton, Manager, Events & Programs, Tom Huisman, Director, Operations and Development; Colin Timm, International Programs Services; Jean-François Rapatel, Programs Assistant.

 

 

            J. McCrae welcomed the delegates to the Board meeting, and the agenda was approved as presented (Annex 1).

 

 

            04-03-01            Love/St-Denis            Carried

 

            To approve the following CIS Board of Directors meeting and conference call minutes:

 

            November 22, 2003

            January 20, 2003

            February 17, 2003

 

 

            a) Progress on 2002-03 Plans   

 

            J. McCrae referred to the “Progress Report on 2002-03 Programs” (Annex 2 and Annex 2a).  T. Huisman noted the following corrections: item 2.3.7 – Eligibility Resources for Members had been completed, item 60.4 – World Internship Program, was in progress, and item 80.1.1 – Develop gamesheets system for individual sports was completed.

 

            b) April 15, 2003 Interim Financial Statements

 

            B. Mullaly presented the April 15, 2003 Interim Financial Statements (Annex 3), and some of the variances were discussed.  Projected surplus to year end is $53,900. 

           

 

 

            T. Mackin reviewed a summary of the results from the Member’s Priority Survey (Annex 4).  As directed by the CIS Board of Directors, and as part of the CIS planning process, Membership input and direction was requested through an evaluation of the priority and quality of CIS programs, services and activities.   A survey was mailed to the membership on March 4, 2003, and responses were collected between March 4 and April 10, 2003.  In total, 41 members returned the survey, providing a response rate of 84%. 

 

            The summaries presented the Mean (average) results, and it was agreed that additional statistics such as standard deviation from mean would be useful in determining where further study would be required.  It was also noted that the written comments may provide some useful insight.

 

            Next steps:

 

1.  T. Mackin to include additional statistics, and an executive summary, and circulate to the Board prior to Regional Association Meetings.

 

2.    Members’ comments to be recorded and analyzed (see Annex 4a)

 

3.    Specific sections of the survey to be distributed to the staff and VPs as appropriate for further analysis.

 

4.    Finance Committee to use “Section 4” of the survey to develop a surplus policy.

 

5.    Consider discussing results at next CIS Members’ Roundtable meeting.

 

 

            J. McCrae presented the CIS four year plan at a glance (Annex 5), 2003-04 Strategies, Objectives and Activities, and Project Descriptions (Annex 6 and 6a).

 

            The Volleyball Congress and East-West Bowl were reviewed in some detail, including the financial and Human Resource implications, and the benefits to CIS and the sports.

 

 

 

            It was also suggested that for planning purposes, information on all future CIS events be circulated to Director’s of Athletics as soon as possible.

 

            Other areas discussed were:

 

Ø      The potential for the CIS Almanac and Directory to be provided electronically

Ø      CIS’ role and speakers at the CCAE congress.

Ø      CESU – the FISU Education Arm

           

 

Ø      CIS’ participation  at the Sport Tourism Congress.

 

The 2003-04 Budget (Annex 3) was considered and the following issues were addressed:

 

The financial commitment to implementing a coaches training workshop for events for athletes with a disability in swimming is contingent on receiving funding from Sport Canada. Without funding, work towards implementing these events may still take place, but in a different format.

 

It was suggested that the percentage of staff work load assigned to the various CIS programs be estimated  (see Annex 7).

 

Marg noted that CIS will not know what the final allocation of funds will be from Sport Canada until approximately July.  It was noted however, that the core funding from Sport Canada has been $342,000 a year over the past 4 years, and that the process of developing an accountability agreement between Sport Canada and  Multi Sport Organizations is currently under way.

 

C. Timm noted that International Programs is also in the process of developing rationale for Sport Canada’s support of World University Games and Championships.

 

04-03-02            Hoffman/St-Denis

 

To approve and recommend to the General Assembly the CIS 2003-04 Budget as presented (Annex 3), as well as the 2003-04 Strategies, Objectives and Activities (Annex 6).

 

04-03-03            St-Denis/Love

 

To receive the CIS four year (2003-06) Plan (Annex 5).

           

 

 

            a) Canada West

           

            S. Slavin reported that only significant issue being faced by Canada West at the moment was the issue of application for membership into the Regional Association.

 

            b)  Ontario University Athletics

 

            L. Hoffman noted that the New Sport Model being adopted will provide economic benefits and greater participation opportunities within the OUA.

 

            c) QSSF

 

            B. Dubeau reported that the Regional Association is undertaking a survey to determine which if any, new sports QSSF members are considering entering.  The OUA model of “invitational” will allow for QSSF participation without committing to league play, which has economic benefits.  QSSF is also in talks with AUS regarding interlock play in volleyball, and will continue interlock play in football.

 

            d) Atlantic University Sport

 

            C. Hamilton reported that AUS is looking at different budget models, and whether they can maintain W. Rugby at the varsity level.  The Regional Association is considering a new awards policy, and the Directors of Athletics have been tasked by university presidents to look into the issue of when student-athletes begin their practices.

 

 

                  

 

            M. McGregor presented a draft policy on the criteria and process to become a CIS Member.  The policy was developed in recognition of the changing face of post-secondary education in Canada, and in response to questions that have come from Regional Associations seeking direction.   

 

            The policy was discussed, and a number of small edits were made including the addition of a probationary period of 2 years.  (See Annex 8 for the updated policy).

 

            It was noted that membership in the AUCC (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada) was the only academic criteria for an institution’s membership in CIS, but that the CIS Eligibility policy must deal with the issue of the individual student-athlete’s eligibility to participate in CIS competition.

 

 

            It was agreed that the existing membership criteria will be applied for any institution applying for membership in CIS prior to June 2003.

 

            04-03-04            Reade/Hoffman            Carried

 

            To approve and recommend to the General Assembly the revised CIS Membership Policy (Annex 8).

 

 

 

            M. McGregor referred to the Sport Portfolio Proposal which recommends restructuring to the Program Council as well as a number of other CIS committees.

 

            A number of edits were recommended, including the provision both a male and female rep on the Sport Committee (See Annex 9 for the updated version).

 

             04-03-05            St-Denis/Hall            Carried

 

            To approve and recommend to the General Assembly Recommendations 1 through 5 of the Sport Portfolio Proposal (Annex 9).

 

            Recommendations 7 through 10 relating to the Coaches Associations were discussed, and it was suggested that each Association should include a student-athlete representative, and that the name “Coaches Association” should be retained.

 

            The recommendation to include the Coaches Association fees in the CIS sport specific fees was also agreed to, and it was suggested that “setting fees” be added to the list of items to which the Coaches Associations provide input or feedback on.

 

            With regard to recommendation 12 – strengthening communications with NSO, it was agreed to change ‘CIS staff shall attend NSO meetings” to “may attend”, as staff would only attend if was beneficial to do so.  It was also agreed that when a staff member does attend an NSO meeting, Directors of Athletics should be provided a report.

 

 

            04-03-06            Reade/Mullaly            Carried

 

            To approve and recommend to the General Assembly Recommendations 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Sport Portfolio Proposal (Annex 9).

 

 

a) Equity and Equality

 

A portion of the November 2002 Roundtable meeting was dedicated to discussing gender equity and awards. Several weaknesses in the current awards gender equity policy were identified. 

 

It was agreed that a broader look at gender equity would go further to achieving gender equity in university athletics than simply applying an awards gender equity policy. The Equity and Equality Committee was tasked with developing a proposal to look at the larger issue of gender equity.

 

T. Huisman presented the Committee’s initial framework which focuses on an alternate broader approach to measuring and encouraging equity in athletics.          

 

T. Huisman reported that the Committee is developing a discussion paper. This paper will be available at the 2003 AGM for a workshop discussion, and that this topic will be the subject of additional discussion at the November 2003 Roundtable, with a view to serving a notice of motion for the 2004 AGM.

 

In the interim until a new policy is in place, motions will be served at the 2003 AGM to improve some of the weaknesses in the current awards gender equity policy.

 

b) Team by Team Maximums     

 

A portion of the November 2002 Roundtable meeting was dedicated to discussing team-by-team maximums and the Roundtable Awards Workshop Workgroup was tasked with taking the feedback from the Roundtable and developing a proposal for the April 2003 Board meeting.

 

T. Mackin reported that the Awards Work Group met by conference call on April 3, and presented the Group’s initial proposal.  It was noted that the proposal did not enjoy the unanimous support of the Awards Workgroup.

 

The rationale for the proposal was that team-by-team maximums would provide a step toward achieving parity between members, would reduce time focused on finding scholarship funds, and would advance gender equity.

 

It was suggested by members of the Board that competitive imbalance will not be solved by team-by-team maximums, and that the broad-brush approach of having everyone limited by team maximums restricted schools that were in full compliance with gender equity. 

 

It was suggested that perhaps as an incentive to comply, a team by team award maximum could be imposed on Members who are not in compliance with gender equity by 2005, and that perhaps the maximums be graduated (i.e 50% to 75% to 100%) until equity is achieved.

 

Other aspects of the proposal were discussed including the exemption for student-athletes attaining 80% in the previous year.  It was suggested that the award dollar amount provided to a student-athlete with 80% be exempted from the maximum dollar calculations, but not from the number of athletes receiving an award calculation.  It was also suggested that the 80% exemption may make it difficult to plan your award allocations very far in advance.

 

Other suggestions for compliance mechanisms included:

Ø     Allowing Members who were not in compliance with awards gender to provide new or entering awards to women only.

Ø     Reducing or freezing the amount of awards given to men until the amounts are the same as the amounts given to women.

 

Other suggestions for discussion at the AGM or November Round Table included:

Ø     The concept of Regional Association and National “competitive balance”

Ø     Members’ perception of equity and how we make our “programs equitable”

 

It was suggested that by 2004 we will need to let Members know what the consequences will be for not being in compliance with awards gender equity by 2005.

 

d)  Minimum Academic Standards

 

At the 2002 AGM several motions were floated with respect to establishing a specific minimum averages in order to be eligible to receive a financial award. None of the motions passed. It was the expressed will at that time to pursue developing a minimum academic standard for eligibility rather than just for awards. The eligibility committee was tasked with pursuing this and bringing forward a motion to the membership.

 

A portion of the November 2002 Roundtable meeting was dedicated to discussing academic standards in order to provide input to the eligibility committee.

           

T. Huisman reported that the eligibility committee will bring forward a proposal to the 2003 AGM with respect to academic eligibility.

 

e) Awards Collection Tool

 

T. Huisman reported that the Equity and Equality Committee will be considering a proposal for streamlining the collection tool at a meeting in April 2003.

 

It was suggested that the committee obtain feedback from the Regional Associations on the Collection Tool, and meet again to consider the feedback in any proposed changes.

 

 

 

            a) Letter of Intent and Offer

 

            T. Huisman reported that the focus of the Eligibility Committee has been the development of  a Recruiting Proposal – Letter of Intent and Offer (Annex 10).

 

            A discussion occurred regarding the extent to which the letter of Intent and Offer will reduce the workload of coaches, and it was suggested that the next draft of the proposal provide specific examples, as well as cost implications to the member institution, to the Regional Association and to CIS.

           

            The issue of administration, compliance and penalties was discussed.  The Board generally agreed that signed Letters of Intent and Offer should be posted on the CIS web site to encourage compliance.  Concern was expressed for the potential  CIS human resource impact, i.e increase in discipline cases.

 

            Concern was also expressed for the increase in Member administration costs, and it was suggested that the concept be discussed with Members who administer a large number of awards, as they would be using the Letter of Intent and Offer most often.  It was agreed that the “Letter” should be accompanied by instructions on  how best to manage the process.

           

            The importance of  keeping the process as simple as possible and adopting a “made in Canada” approach was emphasized.

           

            It was suggested that one method of gauging the importance of the issue to the Membership would be to poll them at the AGM on their willingness to contribute a given amount of money to administer the system.

           

            b) Discussion on how to minimize impact of infractions, and related disciplinary processes on staff time, CIS resources 

 

            M. McGregor presented the following as options to reduce infractions and/or related disciplinary processes.

Ø                  Make penalties harsher

Ø                  Forgive first (non intentional) infraction

Ø                  Provide more best practices sessions

Ø                  Improve language of regulations

Ø                  Train staff and volunteers

 

            The Board discussed these options, and the following additional suggestions were made:

Ø                 Recruit someone to perform targeted audits.

Ø                 Develop Self Assessment tool for Members

Ø                 Suggest that AD’s get assistance from the University’s discipline review process

Ø                 Rank infractions – different processes/penalties for infractions that are oversights.

 

 

            C. Timm noted that the pre-site visit to Daegu has been cancelled, but that planning for the event is proceeding as planned.

 

            The single sport World University Championships were discussed briefly, and C. Timm distributed a bid process grid for information.

 

            A bid process package to assist Members (and communities) interested in bidding to host international university events will be ready for distribution after June 2003.

 

            A manual for CIS Member university participation in international events (including “Frequently Asked Questions”) is also being prepared for distribution in September 2003.

 

            C. Timm noted that Ed Zemrau is stepping down from the FISU Executive after 20 years of service, Elaine Harvey is stepping down from the Control Commission, and that a strategy is being developed to nominate replacements.    The importance of maintaining a presence on the FISU Executive was emphasized.

 

            04-03-07            Love/Hall            Carried

 

            That the Board endorses Bob Philip, UBC as the Canadian nominee for the FISU Executive Council.

The CIS Board of Directors will share its expectations and Canadian agenda with B. Philip, who will work on the CIS’ behalf.

 

            04-03-08            Hoffman/Dubeau            Carried

 

            To endorse Drew Love, Carleton, as the Canadian voting representative at the 2003 FISU General Meeting.

 

 

            a) Marketing Driven National Championships

 

            I. Reade referred to the Curling Discussion Paper (Annex 11) and reviewed the rationale for the Canadian Curling Association (CCA) and CIS entering into discussions to host an “event” for marketing purposes.  CCA has agreed to  provide financial support at the grassroots level, and members would be required to pay their own way to the event.

 

            It was agreed that more information and/or a letter of support were needed from CCA.

 

            Various potential models for the event were discussed, and concern was expressed regarding adding another CIS event to the March Calendar. 

 

 

            b) Corporate Logos on Team Uniforms

 

            P. Metuzals presented a proposal on Corporate Logos on Team Uniforms.  The proposed new policy will allow Members to have corporate logos on their team uniforms at CIS Championships, provided that certain conditions are met.

 

            These conditions and other policy details were discussed by the Board and a number of changes and edits were recommended (see Annex 12 for draft #2 of the policy proposal).

 

            If approved,  the policy would be effective  September 2003.

 

 

 

            c) Protected Categories

 

            P. Metuzals reaffirmed that upon signing a Championship Hosting Contract the Host is informed which categories the CIS currently has protected, and that the Host can solicit sponsors in any of the other categories between 12 and 0 months prior to the championship, provided that CIS has not secured sponsors in these categories.  CIS will inform the host 12 months prior to the Championship which protected categories it has sponsors in.

 

            It was agreed that the Marketing Council should regularly review the list of protected categories. It was also noted that this process must be made clear in the Championship Bid Book.

 

 

            M. McGregor presented Draft 3 of the CIS Logo Usage Policy (Annex 13).

 

            04-03-09            Hoffman/Reade            Carried

 

            To accept the CIS Logo Usage Policy as presented.

 

 

            J. McCrae presented the proposed “Menu of National Championship Models” (Annex 14).

 

            The following issues were discussed:

Ø                 The need to define “Sport” in the CIS By-laws

Ø                 Whether to include the word “sanction” in the Model

Ø                 Whether “profitable” should be included in the Sport Review process Criteria

Ø                 How events classified as FISU qualifiers hosted in cooperation with CIS will effect the gender equity/awards situation for Members

Ø                 Guarantees and TV rights

Ø                 Emerging sports, such as Mountain Biking, Lacrosse, Men’s Rugby, Fast Pitch

Ø                 Resolving the issue of how a sport becomes eligible to be in the “Box 2” category

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       

            In June 2002, the CIS Board of Directors agreed with the Program Committee recommendation to constitute a sub-committee (Chaired by Diane St-Denis) which would be tasked with recommending a consistent policy for Championship Honours (i.e. Rookies of the Year, All-Canadians, etc.), by September 23, 2002.  The Committee also agreed to forward common terminology for the Rookie of the Year age restriction. D. St-Denis presented the Committee’s recommendation to the Board (Annex 15).

 

            The Board made the following changes:

             Recommendation 11) i.  Change “TSN Award” to “Student-Athlete Community Award”.

            Delete Recommendation 11)  ii.

            Delete Recommendation 12)

 

            04-03-10            St-Denis/Mullaly            Carried

 

            To approve the recommendations for changes to Policy 60-Honours (Annex 15) as amended above.

 

            A suggestion was made that CIS develop a standardized nomination form for all honours.

 

 

            J. McCrae noted that the CIS AGM schedule would be adjusted to allow for more issue preparation time. 

 

            ACTION:  CIS to circulate the following documents via e-mail to the Board of Directors for consideration and discussion at up coming Regional Association Meetings.

Ø                 03-04 Budget

Ø                 03-04 Plans and Priorities

Ø                 4 Year plan at a glance

Ø                 CIS Membership Proposal

Ø                 Sport Portfolio Proposal

Ø                 Sponsor Logos on Team Uniforms Proposal

Ø                 National Championship Models

Ø                 CIS Logo Usage Policy

Ø                 Membership Survey Results

Ø                 Staging of Awards Discussion

 

 

 

 

 

           J. McCrae thanked the Board for their time and efforts.  The next meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Wednesday June 11, 2003, 6:00 pm in Canmore, Alberta.

 

           The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 pm.