Reglamento General ACES América

The voting process is the act with which the visits conclude and by which it is decided which municipalities receive the awards. The importance of this fact makes it necessary to develop independent rules governing it. Appendix II of these Regulations offers a detailed explanation of the voting process, and it is available for public consultation whenever interested parties deem it appropriate. It must be known by all members of the Evaluation Committees.

The ACES America eligibility criteria provide the basis for evaluating the candidates for American Capital/Community-Island/City/Town/Region of Sport. The members of the Evaluation Committee assess the cities they visit according to their degree of compliance with these criteria. These twelve criteria address all aspects of sport in the cities. They are available for public consultation by any interested party as Appendix VII of these Regulations.

1. Number of members of the Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committees for cities bidding for American Capital of Sport shall be composed of a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 9 members.

Specific requirements for Communities / Cities / Towns / Regions / Islands:

• 1b. For the evaluation of Community-Islands, the evaluation committees shall be composed of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 members.
• 1c. For the evaluation of Cities, the evaluation committees shall be composed of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 members.
• 1d. For the evaluation of Towns, the evaluation committees shall be composed of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 members.
• 1e. For the evaluation of Regions, the evaluation committees shall be composed of a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7 members.

Members of the Evaluation Committees of two cities competing for the American Capital of Sport award. The Evaluation Committees of cities competing for the American Capital of Sport award for the same year shall have at least 40% of members participating in both visits to the competing cities, in order to achieve the greatest homogeneity and objectivity in the scores awarded.

Where two candidacies compete for the same award other than that of Capital, at least 50% of the members of the Evaluation Committee shall participate in both visits.

The selection of the members of the Evaluation Committee shall be carried out by the Board of Directors of ACES America on the basis of the criteria it deems most appropriate, seeking diversity of profiles and preventing conflicts of interest from arising. In this way, the objectivity of the evaluation process is strengthened.

1. In order to exercise their right to vote, each member of the Evaluation Committee must be free from any conflict of interest among those included in Article 12 and other articles of these Regulations.

2. Exercising the right to vote requires full knowledge of what is being evaluated. Therefore, in order for a Committee member to exercise their right to vote, they must be present at all the events held during the visits to cities bidding for American Capital of Sport. The content of the visits to candidate cities is specified in Appendix I of these Regulations.

1. The members of the Evaluation Committee shall act loyally in the performance of their duties, guided solely by the purpose and objectives entailed in being a Committee member, which is none other than to select the municipality presenting sufficient merits to be granted the award of American Capital/Region/City/Town of Sport, endeavouring at all times to avoid situations that could entail a conflict of interest.

2. The members of the Evaluation Committee shall at all times be prohibited from using their position to obtain personal benefits beyond their duties as members of the Evaluation Committee.

3. A conflict of interest may exist where a member of the Evaluation Committee, at the time of exercising their right to vote as such — that is, by assigning a score to the candidate municipality — may have some kind of relationship, whether personal or financial in nature, that could in any way influence their objectivity.

4. The giving of presents, gifts, services or any other benefits from any person or institution directly or indirectly related to the municipality submitting its candidacy, which could compromise the objectivity of any of the members of the Evaluation Committee, constitutes a situation liable to generate a conflict of interest. The members of the Evaluation Committee may not accept gifts from the candidate city other than tokens of mere institutional courtesy.

5. Other situations that may give rise to a conflict of interest are the following:

• a) Sharing the same locality or region as the city being evaluated.
• b) Belonging to an ACES America delegation in which the city being evaluated is enrolled, regardless of the nationality of the candidate city.
• c) Having any economic or personal interest beyond the relationship that may exist through ACES America.

Specific requirements for Communities/Cities/Towns/Regions concerning Article 12.5: In the case of Evaluation Committees for Community-Islands/Cities/Towns/Regions, sharing the same nationality as the municipality being evaluated shall not be regarded as a conflict of interest.

In the event of a conflict of interest*, the affected member of the Evaluation Committee has the duty to report that circumstance to the Board of Directors of ACES America and to refrain at all times from intervening or participating, directly or indirectly, in the agreements or decisions adopted by it, particularly with regard to the voting process for the candidate municipality.

* A personal conflict of interest is a situation in which a person's private interests, such as outside professional relationships or personal financial assets, interfere — or may be perceived to interfere — with the performance of their duties as a member of the Evaluation Committee.

1. The members of the Evaluation Committee must at all times maintain standards of prudence consistent with their role as regards the duty of secrecy and discretion. They shall therefore be required at all times to keep secret the deliberations or opinions, their own or those of others, that take place during the evaluation process of the candidate city.

2. The duty of secrecy and discretion must be maintained even after the evaluation process of the candidate cities has concluded and the award has been granted. The duty of secrecy and discretion must also be maintained even if a Committee member ends their relationship with ACES America.

1. The award of American Capital/Region/City/Town of Sport shall be granted after tallying the scores assigned by the members of the Evaluation Committee to each of the eligibility criteria following the voting process carried out during the visit. Article 5 of these Regulations refers to the voting procedure, available in Appendix II.

2. Should a difference equal to or lower than two and a half points, 2.5 (out of 100), be recorded during the evaluation of the candidacy after the vote carried out by the Committee members, and provided the remaining conditions are met, the city with the lower score may directly obtain the American Capital of Sport award for the following year, provided there is unanimity among the Committee members, with the subsequent approval of the Board and acceptance by the city concerned.