Chairman: Mathijs de Bruijn Members: Sean Kavanagh, Uwe Schneider, David Bareford. Excused: Alan Blount.

Observers:
Tom Donnelly, Philippe de Cock, Sal Haim, Cherzi, Janne Balkedal, David Levin, Gerald Stuerzlinger, Surzi, Cees van Helden

2: Standardization of Event Questionnaire and Evaluation

The CSC has started the first questionnaire in 2000 (Pre-WAG) and done three in 2001. The questionnaires seem to give a lot of information to Organisers and Competition team of an event The CSC notices that there is parallel efforts by EPAS and the 'Jury-debriefing' session and suggest that the CIA streamlines the efforts in order to avoid double work. Since the work of doing a questionnaire is quite substantial and to avoid that there is a 'wear off effect' the CSC decided to do questionnaires on Events of special interest and if an Organiser requests the CSC to do so. This resulted in the decision that for the year 2002 a questionnaire and evaluation is intended to be executed for:

• Pre-Europeans (name to be assigned)
• Motegi (Scan Kavanagh)
• Worlds (David Bareford and Uwe Schneider
• Mobilux (Mathijs de Bruijn)

The questionnaire has most value for 'Pre-Events' and Events like Worlds and Europeans. On other Events like Motegi and Mobilux e.g. a yearly repetition of the questionnaire serves no purpose. It was noted that reviewing and evaluating procedures are a common practise nowadays and that the CIA is well advised to adopt these practises. It was also noted that the outcome of questionnaires should be openly published. An online format was discussed and will be adopted. An Email reminder to competitors not filling out a questionnaire was suggested. Event Organisers are encouraged to make available a computer at the event to fill out the forms. Organizers are encouraged to read past evaluations of other events to learn for their event.

It was noticed that the best time to collect questionnaires is at the end of the Event before competitors return home. It was noted that questions on the performance of the Event Director need to be more specific e.g. Competition direction Task setting Were you satisfied with the Communications skills of the Director (during briefings)? General attitude towards competitors or other involved people. Did you ask for assistance (complaints) and if so: are you satisfied with the reaction/response and attitude/approach to handle the situation (NOT in the matter, but the way you were treated!).

Use Event specific questions.

Always: Were you satisfied with the value for the money

It was noted that it might be an idea to include questions from EPAS in the CSC questionnaire. It was then concluded that EPAS is invited to include their questions under a paragraph 'EPAS'.

3) Selection Procedures for Worlds, WAG, Europeans.

The CSC brought up this idea shortly before the conference in Riga and found that not enough contributions were collected yet to make any proposals. The item will be further discussed in the coming year. Nevertheless the following observation was made. It was considered undesirable that Organisers had the power to choose the invitation system. The CSC suggests that one procedure only is applicable. The CSC will try to make a proposal next year based on polling the competitors and the work of the CSC. If a proposed selection procedure is developed the CSC suggest testing the procedure without binding effect during the 2003 Europeans and if found acceptable that it will be applied in 2004 and on.

4) Appointment procedures for Event Directors for World and Continental Championships

The issue was first raised in 1993! and discussed at the plenary 1994. Ever since it has been moved from one Committee to another. Upon request the SWG established (1998-1999) minimum criteria. They are:

1. to have passed Jury Board Tests 1 and 4;
2. to have been involved in three separate events as a senior official or competitor;
3. to have been a senior official in at least one national or higher championship. A senior official in this context is Event Director Chief Scorer or Safety Officer.

Besides establishing the minimum criteria there has been no movement. The list at this moment is dated 8 Aug 1999.

With regret the CSC noted that after the initial work done on this there has been a standstill on this subject. The CSC was founded after a number of unsatisfactory Events with Directors not meeting the challenges desired by competitors and we now return to the initial issue of Director selection.

The CSC proposes that a process similar to the Jury Board system is established to find future Event Directors. In this system there shall be three levels

1. Entry Level
2. Intermediate Level
3. Senior Level Among other things, the CSC thinks that a World or European championship should have same director/assistance combination as the Pre-Event (even if not sanctioned).

It should be understood that the CSC has no desire to be the only body deciding who will be the Director. The CSC thinks that this should be a combined effort between the applicable bodies in CIA (EPAS, CSC ... ?). The CSC also likes to point out that it is desirable to start the ED selection process well in time (three year ahead) so that the envisaged director can be exercising on the spot in the year before the Event.

Also the CSC likes to state that it should not be the goal of CIA to train a certain Director for a certain Event. The CSC believe that a director should earn his name and fame in a free market way and work his way up. Besides that the CIA should train or establish a training process for Directors in general terms so that more persons have a chance and the final election is open to those that have worked their way up.

The discussion then concentrated on the present problem of the Director for the Europeans 2003. The CSC has expressed their concerns in an Email-exchange with the Organisers and the Lithuania Delegate about the experience of the proposed Director by the Organisers. Cees van Helden, present as Observer, was asked if he was willing to participate in the discussion and he confirmed that.

The European CSC members then again declared their concern that he has enough experience to direct an Event of this magnitude. Mr. van Helden confirmed that he feels confident that he is able to meet the demands. A longer debate was held with pro and cons about this issue.

Finally Mr. Van Helden was asked if he would accept that a senior Director, Masashi Kakuda would be the Deputy Director in 2002 in the Pre-Europeans. Cees stated that he would accept this. Then after that Event an evaluation would be made and if satisfactory the Europeans 2003 would be held in the same configuration. If unsatisfactory the CSC proposes Masashi Kakuda to be the Director and Cees his Deputy. Cees indicated that in this case he would not be available.

To evaluate the Pre-Event the CSC would suggest that some senior competitors from Europe would participate and it was noticed that unfortunately the time schedule was not favourable because during the Pre-Event two important competitions are taking place with most senior competitors taking part. Cees indicated that he could ask the organisers to change the schedule so that more competitors could participate.

After that it was decided that the CSC chairman would talk with the CIA president to convey the CSC thoughts and find ways of dealing with the issue in an appropriate way.

5) WRL WG summary

Gerald Stuerzlinger presented his report from the WRL-WG.

It was once again noted that the WRL should not be used for invitational purposes until further noticed.

Gerald then read two motions (see his paper) essentially asking the plenary to accept the work done by the WG. If the motions carry by the plenary it is the intention to dissolve the WRI-WG until further work is required. It was decided the Gerald StuerzIinger and Uwe Schneider would be the keeper(s) of the WRL.

The CSC proposes to CIA secretary (change of motion one), to include the WRL data request in the Statistic request from the NACs submitted with the annual Agenda with the NOTE:

Please be reminded: not received reports, will lead to 20% lesser rating per year

6) CSC Composition For the year 2003

The CSC recommend no change. To safeguard the rotational principle of the CSC following changes are intended:

• 2003 Uwe Schneider steps out as member.
• Mathijs de Bruijn steps back as chairman. 2004
• David Bareford and Mathijs de Bruijn step out as member.

It was announced that the CSC would try to find appropriate replacement during the next year via the Internet while safeguarding some sort of worldwide participation (at this moment: 3 Europeans, 1 Australian, 1 USA).

The idea of having a "speaker" for the pilots in Worlds and European Championships was then brought up. The idea then filtered out that a good person to do this job would be a Steward. This Steward would be proposed to the Organiser by the CSC and would then be invited to the Event. He could convey concerns of the competitors as a group or individually to the Director or the other way around. This person could be this "collector" for the pilot's feelings - provided organizers and pilots agree on that person. This person should be a senior/respected competing pilot that is not taking part in the event.