EUROPEAN PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE General Assembly DUBROVNIK, CROATIA 25TH JUNE 2005 MINUTES 1 Opening, roll call and adoption of agenda 1.1 Welcome The President welcomed all delegates and opened the meeting at 09:00 hrs. A special welcome was extended to the following guests: * Sir Philip Craven, IPC President * Mr. Hans Lindström, former EPC President * Mr. Xavier González, CEO of the IPC * Mr. Mike Smith, Managing Director, Special Olympics Europe/Eurasia * Mr. John Teunissen, IPC Treasurer * Mrs Jovanka Vogrinec, Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports Mr. Ratko Kovacic welcomed the delegates on behalf of the Croatian Sports Federation for Disabled and read a welcome letter sent by the President of the Republic of Croatia. The IPC President addressed the EPC General Assembly, stressing the importance of two-way communication. The common goal of both the EPC and the IPC is to strengthen the Paralympic movement for the benefit of the athletes and thereby fulfill IPC’s vision: “To Enable Paralympic Athletes to Achieve Sporting Excellence and Inspire and Excite the World". 1.2 Roll Call The Secretary General announced that 35 members are present, which is more than 2/3 of the EPC membership, whereby the quorum of 1/3 (17 members) is met. The following members were present: Austria – Belgium – Bulgaria – CP-ISRA – Croatia – Cyprus – Czech Republic – Denmark – Faeroe Islands – Finland – France –Greece – Hungary – IBSA – Iceland – INAS-FID – Ireland – Israel – Italy – IWAS – Latvia – Lithuania – the Netherlands – Norway – Poland – Portugal – Russia – Serbia and Montenegro – Slovakia – Slovenia – Spain – Sweden – Switzerland – Ukraine – United Kingdom. In addition, European Sports Co-coordinators for Archery, Cycling and Swimming attended the meeting with no voting rights. 1.3 Appointment of tellers Belgium moved and Portugal seconded to appoint John Teunissen and Tony York as tellers. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes. 1.4 Adoption of the Agenda Austria moved and Croatia seconded to adopt the agenda as circulated. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes in favour. 2 Minutes of the last General Assembly 2.1 Accuracy Denmark moved and The Netherlands seconded to adopt the minutes of the 2003 General Assembly as an accurate record. The motion carried with 33 votes in favour. 2.2 Matters arising No issues were raised; all matters are covered in the agenda of this meeting. 3 General Report 3.1 President’s Report The President read the written report that had been circulated with the meeting documents and referred to the comments included in the Operations Plan, including information on the accomplishments and progress made. The incoming Executive Committee will, as one of its first priorities, need to develop a new Operations Plan. On the question raised by Denmark regarding what the President considered to be priorities in the area of development, he clarified his intention by remarking that “development means many different things”. There are, within the Paralympic movement, a variety of stakeholders, all capable of making different contributions to reflect the particular needs of their constituency. All are equally important and some stakeholders are better placed to deliver a certain type of service than others. CP-ISRA moved and Iceland seconded to receive the President’s report. The motion carried with 33 votes in favour. 3.2 Secretary General’s Report The Secretary General summarised his comprehensive written report, circulated with the meeting documents. It was noted that the EPC currently has a total of 49 members (45 NPCs and 4 IOSDs). The General Assembly applauded in appreciation of the Spanish NPC for covering the cost of the part-time employment of Mr. Stirton, assisting the EPC’s secretariat for 8 hours a week. With no questions being raised, Norway moved and Spain seconded to adopt the report of the Secretary General. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes in favour. 3.3 Technical Officer’s Report The Technical Officer could not attend the General Assembly and had sent his apologies. A written report had been circulated. Spain remarked that a number of important issues and action items were identified in the report of the Technical Officer in relation to European Championships, and requested that the incoming Executive Committee consider these questions. Denmark moved and Belgium seconded to adopt the report. The motion carried with 32 votes in favour. 4 Financial Report 4.1 Accounts 2003 – 2004 Reference was made to the comprehensive set of financial documents and the translations of the auditors report sent out with the meeting documents. The Treasurer reported that in both years the results had been positive, with a surplus of 3,527 Euro in the year 2003 and 9,564 Euro in the year 2004. The Treasurer explained in detail the income and expenditures of both years and indicated that by the end of the year 2004 EPC’s capital had increased to 51,826 Euro. No funds have been withdrawn from the “OP-funds” accruals; therefore the amount remains unchanged at 50,052 Euro. The Executive Committee had decided to earmark these accruals for operational expenses related to sports and development programmes. With no further questions being raised, Austria moved and the Netherlands seconded to adopt the audited accounts. The motion carried with 33 votes in favour, no abstentions and no votes against. 4.2 Budget 2006-2007 The President expressed appreciation for the hard work done by the Treasurer. In view of the many changes and the fact that he has a challenging task, he congratulated Mr. Weber for developing a budget proposal. The Treasurer stated that it is difficult to foresee the future and referred to the following trends with uncertain outcome which all have an impact on the revenue and expenses: * Independence of the Regions * Independence of the Sports (capitation taxes) * No provisions are currently made for paid staff * EU projects are always announced at very short notice, making it impossible to include them in advance in the long-term budget forecasts. The proposed budget is based only on existing and known parameters and must be seen as a framework only for the Executive Committee to adjust according to developments. With no further questions being raised, Italy moved and Denmark seconded to adopt the budget as proposed. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes in favour. 4.3 EPC membership fees Reference was made to the current discussions being held with IPC which may result in only one fee being levied for both IPC and EPC. In the meantime, and pending the outcome of these discussions, the Executive Committee proposes to maintain the EPC membership fee at 300 Euro. CP-ISRA moved and Iceland seconded to adopt the proposal. The motion was carried unanimously with 35 votes in favour. 4.4 Appointment of auditors The Netherlands moved and Sweden seconded to adopt the proposal of the Executive Committee to continue working with TRB, based in Düsseldorf, as the auditors for the EPC. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes in favour. 4.5 Discharging the Executive Committee In order to comply with German legislation, the General Assembly was asked to formally discharge the Executive Committee from its financial responsibilities. Austria so moved and Finland seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes in favour. 5 Motions 5.1 Motions submitted by the Executive Committee The President indicated that prior to considering the motions circulated with the meeting documents there was a need for the General Assembly to consider a motion that had been approved during the 2001 General Assembly. The Treasurer explained that due to an oversight the constitutional change had not been included with the other changes to the Constitution that were submitted for registration with the Court. As a matter of formality, confirmation was now needed of the 2001 decision accepting the IOSDs as members of the EPC. Reference was made to the Minutes of the 2001 General Assembly and it was agreed to formally confirm the decision and to incorporate the amendment in the Constitution. Extract from the Minutes of the 2001 General Assembly: Great Britain moved and Sweden seconded that a new sub-article 4.2 be added to Article 4 on Membership of the European Paralympic Committee constitution which states: “Art. 4.2 Membership of the EPC shall be available to each International Sports Organisation for the Disabled (IOSD) in membership and good standing with the IPC” Great Britain clarified that the words: “in exactly the same manner as within IPC itself” used in the rationale for the motion was purely meant for the IOSDs to be part of EPC as members; it is not meant in such a way that IOSDs would also automatically have membership in the Executive Committee or any other committee of EPC. The friendly amendment proposed by Germany was accepted by mover and seconder that the right for membership should only apply for the relevant European bodies of the IOSDs, or is delegated to a European representative in the case no European body or committee is properly constituted. The amended motion was carried with 2 abstentions. The Treasurer read the new art. 4.2, which will be incorporated in the EPC Constitution: “Membership of the EPC shall be available to each non-profit making International Sports Organisation for the Disabled (IOSD) in membership with the IPC, either through a properly constituted European regional organisation or, where this does not exist, through a European representative of the international body” The Secretary General informed that the following motions submitted by the Executive Committee are constitutional amendments which require a two-thirds majority for adoption. Motion 1 Seconded by Spain 1) Amendment of the Constitution Article 2.2: proposal to add “or International Organisations of Sports for the Disabled” between “…national organisations…” and “…in membership of…”. 2) Amendment of the Constitution Article 8.6: proposal to delete “national”. The Secretary General explained that these amendments were needed as a result of the earlier decision and to reflect the membership of the IOSDs in the Constitution. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes in favour. Motion 2 Seconded by Switzerland Amendment of the Constitution, inserting the following 3 new articles in Article 5.3 describing the functions of the General Assembly and renumbering the existing articles 5.3.7, 5.3.8 and 5.3.9 accordingly: 1) Article 5.3.7 Decide upon EPC representation on the IPC Council of the Regions. 2) Article 5.3.8 Debate and decide upon motions to be put forward to the IPC General Assembly. 3) Article 5.3.9 Debate and decide upon nominations from EPC to the IPC Governing Board and other IPC bodies. The Secretary General explained that the upcoming new status of EPC as an independent member is the rationale for the motion. This new status confers additional rights to EPC, and the intention of these new sub-articles is to give the General Assembly decision-making power in these areas. Referring to the fact that the General Assembly only meets every two years, Denmark questioned the efficiency of asking the General Assembly to decide on the EPC representation in the IPC General Assembly and suggested that this decision should be taken by the Executive Committee. The President reported that it was the Executive Committee’s view that this function should be reflected in the Constitution as a General Assembly responsibility; however, the General Assembly may very well decide to delegate that authority to the Executive Committee. The item was further discussed under agenda item 6.1. The motion carried with 34 votes in favour, no abstentions, and no votes against. Motion 3 Seconded by Spain Amendment to the Constitution Article 6.1.2: 1) Replace “IPC Athletes Committee” with “IPC Athletes Council”. 2) Add “, preferably from among its European members,” after “Council”. 3) Replace “Practices or has practised one of the IPC Sports” with “Has participated in the summer or winter Paralympic Games in the past eight years.” 4) Add “This appointment shall require ratification by the EPC Executive Committee.” The Secretary General informed that these amendments bring EPC’s constitution in line with the new IPC structures and with the criteria for membership on the IPC Athletes Council. A friendly amendment from Spain was accepted to delete the word “European” in the first paragraph as it is already mentioned in the criteria. As a result, the proposed amended article reads: “The Athletes Representative is appointed by the IPC Athletes Council, preferably from among its members, and shall meet the following criteria: a) Has participated in the summer or winter Paralympic Games in the past eight years. b) Comes from an EPC member country. This appointment shall require ratification by the EPC Executive Committee.” The motion carried with 34 votes in favour, no abstentions, and no votes against. 5.2 Motions submitted by the Members The Secretary General reported that clarification had been sought with regard to the preamble of the motions submitted by the BPA as this could be interpreted as a suggestion to amend the Constitution; BPA confirmed that it was a statement only. Spain remarked that the statement very clearly has an impact on the functions of the EPC and requested clarification on how this would be handled. The BPA confirmed that the preamble was not intended as a motion, but was provided as background to their motions. It was agreed that the preamble should not be dealt with in a separate motion and that the incoming Executive Committee should look at the preamble and give it consideration. The preamble reads: The EPC should restructure its functions into the following areas of responsibility; 1 International sport events for European youth and schoolchildren. 2 Knowledge transfer in the interest of European nations. 3 Research and Development of sporting practice. 4 Accessing European Union development money and initiatives. 5 Political lobbying on behalf of European NPCs. Motion 1 Submitted by BPA, seconded by Portugal The EPC should establish a commission [or committee] for the organisation of European international competitions, either single or multi-sport, for talented young people and schoolchildren. In so doing EPC should aim to aid the development of sporting opportunities for people with a disability who seek to further their ambition of competing at the Paralympic Games. The BPA referred to the discussions during the previous day’s conference with regard to the future role of the EPC and in particular the need to identify new and younger athletes and provide meaningful competition at a level above national competitions to prepare for future Paralympic participation. The motion is not intended to change the current role of the EPC but to add a role and place emphasis on the importance of that role. The motion endeavours to give guidance to the EPC Executive Committee on its future priorities. EPC should attract funding from European Institutions to provide good opportunities for youth to compete. It will thereby support the growth and the development of young people who can eventually participate in the Paralympic Games. The Czech Republic indicated that EPC should take responsibility to support youth sports on all levels, not only elite, and suggested a further addition to the motion that EPC should take responsibility for all. The President informed that this could not be considered as a friendly amendment to the motion as it significantly affects the intent of the motion. Therefore only the original motion could be considered. Iceland expressed strong support to the motion by indicating that a stepping stone for young athletes is very much needed. The motion carried with 34 votes in favour, no abstentions and no votes against. Motion 2 Submitted by the BPA, seconded by Portugal The EPC should commission an analysis of the performance of European nations in the Paralympic Games and World Championships and use this information to promote a European-wide debate on sport development, coaching and sport science/medicine. The outcome should create an annual coaching and science conference designed to ensure that European nations remain at the forefront of Paralympic sport The BPA informed that the motion is an endeavour to take the success of Europe further forward. European Paralympic sport has been at the forefront of the movement since its inception but is now finding increasing challenges from across the world. The BPA is conducting its own research and believes it would be useful to carry out, in addition to individual nations, an analysis of how Europe performs; based on this analysis, an evaluation can be made of how individual nations can support each other. The motion carried with 34 votes in favour, no abstentions, and no votes against. Motion 3 Submitted by BPA and seconded by Cyprus The EPC is required to establish a commission to examine the impact upon Paralympic sport in its member nations as a consequence of the awarding of the Games to a European nation which may be highly likely in 2012 with London, Paris, Madrid and Moscow in the running. Advice should be given to support the host nation and competing nations in fulfilling their role in providing the best sporting and commercial climate for the NPCs to maximise the effect of a European Games. The BPA reported that also this motion is submitted in the spirit of learning from each other and sharing experience. The creation of a body of knowledge relating to the impact of a European Games would benefit all nations in Europe in meeting their obligations. The motion carried with 34 votes in favour, no abstentions, and no votes against. Motion 4 Submitted by the BPA and seconded by IWAS The EPC should make representation to the IPC with respect to greater cooperation and consultation on the inclusion and exclusion of sports and events in the Paralympic sports programme. The BPA stated that a number of NPCs had expressed concern with regard to the recent changes of sports and events on the 2008 Beijing Programme. The motion is designed to focus on the role of the EPC in IPC; as members of both organisations it is important to know where the NPCs are included in the consultation process on issues that affect all NPCs. It also relates to the question whether communication on common issues should go either through the EPC and/or directly from the NPC to the IPC. The Netherlands commented that the inclusion of sports is not to be decided through a democratic process but should be based on clear criteria and comply with the rules established by the IPC. The motion carried with 33 votes in favour, 1 abstention, and no votes against. 6 IPC General Assembly The President referred to the new situation that has come about, with EPC becoming a full member of the IPC and the additional rights associated with that membership. It was recognised that the procedures of allowing motions and nominations from the floor deviates from normal practice and are a consequence of the unusual timeframe in this particular year. 6.1 EPC Representation in Beijing Reference was made to the discussions earlier on in the agenda (Item 5.1), where it was agreed to incorporate in the EPC Constitution that the EPC General Assembly shall decide on the representative to the IPC by the General Assembly. Denmark seconded the motion of the Executive Committee to delegate that authority to the Executive Committee to decide. The motion carried with 32 votes in favour, no abstentions and no votes against. 6.2 EPC motions for IPC General Assembly Motion 1 Submitted by CP-ISRA and seconded by Norway Reference was made to the discussions held during the previous day’s conference where concerns had been expressed with regard to the financial implications and the difficulties with the overall composition of the team officials when applying the rule of 1 to 1 personnel support for athletes with a severe disability. CP-ISRA and Norway submitted a paper explaining the intent of their motion, thereby asking IPC to continue the review and refinement of the rules and regulations to address these concerns. The Netherlands and Spain asked for further clarification as the motion was worded in a very general way and the rationale presented an assumption of the rules which needs confirmation. It was further stated that although entry fees are no longer levied for the Paralympic Games, governments should maintain the level of funding to the NPCs to cover travel and accommodation expenses for the additional team officials. NPCs were encouraged to bring this issue up with their respective governments. As a result of the discussions, Norway accepted a friendly amendment to the motion, submitted by the Netherlands, which reads as follows. The EPC General Assembly requests that IPC takes action and continue the improvement of the IPC’s rules and regulations in such a way that conditions for athletes with severe disabilities who participate in the Paralympic Games are not discriminatory to other athletes in the Paralympic Games. The motion carried with 31 votes in favour, 2 abstentions and no votes against. Motion 2 Submitted by the BPA and seconded by Ireland Reference was made to the discussions under agenda item 5.2 and motion 4 of the BPA which had been passed with a large majority. BPA proposed to slightly change the wording of motion 4 to make it fit as a motion to go forward for consideration by the IPC General Assembly, with the understanding that the rationale submitted with that motion would be removed. The motion carried with 25 votes in favour, 8 abstentions and no votes against. 6.3 Nominations to the IPC Governing Board For the position of IPC President: Hungary moved and Croatia seconded to nominate Sir Philip Craven, who accepted the nomination. The motion carried unanimously with 35 votes. For the position of IPC Vice President: Iceland indicated its wish to nominate Dr. Robert Price, who did not accept the nomination for this specific position as he genuinely believes that the key leadership positions should be held by former Paralympians. For the position of IPC Member at Large: Iceland proposed both the names of Dr. Robert Price and Mr. Karl Vilhelm Nielsen. The Secretary General reminded the assembly that, according to IPC rules, only one nomination per position may be submitted; furthermore, if three nominations are put forward then both genders must be represented. Mr. Karl Vilhelm Nielsen informed that in view of the fact that both nominations could not go forward, he would withdraw his name in favour of the EPC’s nomination of Dr. Price. Dr. Price indicated he would accept the nomination for the position as Member at Large. Iceland moved and Portugal seconded for EPC to nominate Dr. Robert Price. The motion carried with 32 votes in favour, 1 abstention and no votes against. In view of the fact that no names of women were brought forward for nomination by the EPC, individual NPCs were recommended to discuss this in their home country and consider nominating women. On request of the Netherlands, the CEO of the IPC explained the IPC election procedures. It was recognised that the procedures are at first view complicated and all efforts will be made to clearly explain the procedures to the delegates at the IPC General Assembly. 6.4 Recommendations for IPC Standing Committee membership It was explained that membership on the IPC Standing Committees is not decided through elections but by appointments made by the IPC Governing Board. EPC, along with all other members, has the opportunity to submit names for consideration. The following names were recommended: Anti-Doping Committee: Dr Matthias Strupler, Director of the Institute of Sports Medicine at the Swiss Paraplegic Centre and member of the Anti-Doping Commission of the Swiss Olympic Association (Switzerland) Classification Committee: Mrs Mirre Kipfer, currently a member of the IPC Classification Committee (Switzerland) Sports Science Committee: Dr Claudio Perret, Institute for Clinical Research at the Swiss Paraplegic Centre (Switzerland) Paralympic Games Committee: Mr Christian Egli, Executive Director of the Swiss Paralympic Committee (Switzerland) Women in Sport Committee: Mrs Tine Teilmann (Denmark) 7 Election of the EPC Executive Committee President: Mr. Enrique Sanchez-Guijo Acevedo was elected unanimously and by acclamation. Secretary General: Mr. Luca Pancalli was elected unanimously and by acclamation. Treasurer: Mr. Gerard Masson was elected unanimously and by acclamation. Technical Officer: the position remains vacant. The Executive Committee will fill the position by co-option, subject to ratification at the next General Assembly. Members at Large: Mr Ratko Kovacic and Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson were elected unanimously and by acclamation. The two remaining positions will be filled by co-option and are subject to ratification at the next General Assembly. The newly elected President explained that 3 late nominations had been received and that these names will be considered by the new Executive Committee. 8 Closing In his closing speech Dr Price indicated that it had been an honour and a privilege to serve the EPC as President and that, if elected, he was committed to continue representing both the EPC and IPC membership within IPC’s new Governing Board. The new President thanked Dr Price for his commitment and for the marvellous job done within EPC. He further announced that the sessions had been audio recorded and all information on the General Assembly will soon be available on the EPC website. He was pleased to announce that the new Executive Committee will have a majority of Paralympians as members and has a good representation of women. All outgoing members of the Executive Committee were thanked for their contributions and hard work and Croatia was thanked for hosting the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 16.00hrs. Leen Coudenys Dr. Robert Price Minute taker President ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 EPC GA 2005 25-06-05 minutes