CIVL Delegate
Discipline
PG and HG XC
What went wrong ?
CIVL Bureau's member have been handling more and more CAT1 event. Appointed into Jury and Steward position, they often overstept FAI guidelines to the point they sometimes acted like Meet Director, Task Setters or Event Manager. The problems were therefore numerous :
- "Puppet" or discharged local organisers
- Partial judge when we came to the point of ruling a complain or a protest
- Lack of political distance induced by Bureau's main role
- Absence of feedback toward CIVL Bureau after a proble arise
- Bureau's member being overworked form events mangement and insufficient leadership and commitment on the structural part of the sport
- "Puppet" or discharged local organisers
- Partial judge when we came to the point of ruling a complain or a protest
- Lack of political distance induced by Bureau's main role
- Absence of feedback toward CIVL Bureau after a proble arise
- Bureau's member being overworked form events mangement and insufficient leadership and commitment on the structural part of the sport
What would you propose ?
CIVL Internal Regulations already define clear duty for Bureau's members. None of these are related to CAT1 event management. We could try to enforce more explicit version of the internal regulations forbidding Bureau's member to take sporting position into CAT1 event.
Issue category
Comments
Organiser
This illustrates that roles should be dinstingushed from people and that for a series of roles there should be a clear separation, that certain roles cannot be assigned to one and the same person at the same time.
A way to inroduce this in the governance of the institution is to create new bodies like islands from other territories for specific topics like:
- enforcing rules and litigation: cannot run the event, cannot even be the author of the rule.
- accident investigation: cannot be in charge of the safety on an event, cannot be the runner of the event.
These bodies could created be inside the CIVL or external and fully independant.