Asking for a friend ............
EGM motions and documents BOTH NOT CARRIED)
Re: EGM motions and documents
Small "f" ?
Asking for a friend ............
![Image]()
Asking for a friend ............
- Attachments
-
- Capture.JPG (11.07 KiB) Viewed 376 times
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:35 pm
Re: EGM motions and documents
HI Brian,
I am so looking forward to this being behind us too.
I just wish to reply to "And we are back here again….like I said I have no problem with affiliation BUT the committee is putting the cart before the horse. CI NEEDS to get its house in order regarding recreational sea kayaking. There needs to be clear and concise guidelines and by extension clear parameters regarding their insurance cover."
I have dealt with CI about the symposium last year. I felt like I was dealing with people who had an idea how ISKA worked.
How could they have good knowledge of ISKA's needs if we didn't have our feet under the table, pushing for the changes that are needed?
Dave Walsh's comparison of how Mountaineering Ireland can insure members for " peer" trips made for interesting reading. Of course we will go to them, with the weight of our membership, and push for something similar. But we can only do this on the inside. Indeed, Dave Walsh said a few days ago about Kipper, operations manager at CI "I didn't know that Kipper is about the place. All may not quite be lost over there …"
We can get motions for insurance of peer groups adopted at the CI AGM if we have the membership behind us and the name of ISKA, as an affiliated club/ association leading with this.
I am so looking forward to this being behind us too.
I just wish to reply to "And we are back here again….like I said I have no problem with affiliation BUT the committee is putting the cart before the horse. CI NEEDS to get its house in order regarding recreational sea kayaking. There needs to be clear and concise guidelines and by extension clear parameters regarding their insurance cover."
I have dealt with CI about the symposium last year. I felt like I was dealing with people who had an idea how ISKA worked.
How could they have good knowledge of ISKA's needs if we didn't have our feet under the table, pushing for the changes that are needed?
Dave Walsh's comparison of how Mountaineering Ireland can insure members for " peer" trips made for interesting reading. Of course we will go to them, with the weight of our membership, and push for something similar. But we can only do this on the inside. Indeed, Dave Walsh said a few days ago about Kipper, operations manager at CI "I didn't know that Kipper is about the place. All may not quite be lost over there …"
We can get motions for insurance of peer groups adopted at the CI AGM if we have the membership behind us and the name of ISKA, as an affiliated club/ association leading with this.
-
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
Hi Rob,
Having cover for peer groups would be fantastic.
However my concern is that once we fold our tent and come in under CI’s umbrella we lose any leverage to affect change. There would be no onus on CI to listen to our concerns if we are already affiliated and signed up members.
Last years symposium was a heads up regarding those concerns. Despite the huge amount of work yourself and Fiona put in to get cover from CI, the weather didn’t play ball.
Restrictions imposed under the guise of insurance cover limits our flexibility. Mandatory ratios, wind strength caps, minimum leader certification etc etc…
No plan survives contact with the enemy - that being the Irish weather.
We had many meeting with CI under Chris’s tenure. All of them were hugely positive. So positive in fact that in 2018 we affiliated on the back of commitments made. Once we affiliated however …….crickets.
It’s my understanding that we already have our feet under the CI table. Isn’t Sue an ISKA committee member already sitting at the table. If we can’t get the commitments we need now what makes you think they’ll be forthcoming once we affiliate ??
My concerns remain.
The onus is on CI ……. Provide clear and concise guidelines and conditions of insurance cover for recreational sea kayakers and I would happily come in under their umbrella.
Thanks Rob.
Brian
Having cover for peer groups would be fantastic.
However my concern is that once we fold our tent and come in under CI’s umbrella we lose any leverage to affect change. There would be no onus on CI to listen to our concerns if we are already affiliated and signed up members.
Last years symposium was a heads up regarding those concerns. Despite the huge amount of work yourself and Fiona put in to get cover from CI, the weather didn’t play ball.
Restrictions imposed under the guise of insurance cover limits our flexibility. Mandatory ratios, wind strength caps, minimum leader certification etc etc…
No plan survives contact with the enemy - that being the Irish weather.
We had many meeting with CI under Chris’s tenure. All of them were hugely positive. So positive in fact that in 2018 we affiliated on the back of commitments made. Once we affiliated however …….crickets.
It’s my understanding that we already have our feet under the CI table. Isn’t Sue an ISKA committee member already sitting at the table. If we can’t get the commitments we need now what makes you think they’ll be forthcoming once we affiliate ??
My concerns remain.
The onus is on CI ……. Provide clear and concise guidelines and conditions of insurance cover for recreational sea kayakers and I would happily come in under their umbrella.
Thanks Rob.
Brian
Re: EGM motions and documents
Hi to the committee,
I just want to say thank you for the huge amount of effort and hard work that you have put into this. Also, I appreciate your communication and the information you have made available. As a member of ISKA, I am fortunate to be in an association with such excellent people.
I will give the documents and motions the attention they deserve and cast my vote when the time comes.
Thanks very much,
Tony
I just want to say thank you for the huge amount of effort and hard work that you have put into this. Also, I appreciate your communication and the information you have made available. As a member of ISKA, I am fortunate to be in an association with such excellent people.
I will give the documents and motions the attention they deserve and cast my vote when the time comes.
Thanks very much,
Tony
-
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
Ok. This is very long, but I’ve been mulling it over for quite a while and want to share my opinion on how ISKA should operate. However I am not going to tell you how you should vote. The bottom line is, in my opinion, ISKA is changing regardless of whether we join CI or not and the only way for you to influence that change is to get on the committee, step up to organise and lead at meets, and use the structures (constitution or not) to fight for the organisation you want.
Sea kayaking is an adventure sport.
I’ve been privileged that more experienced paddlers than I, have been willing to include me in their trips at ISKA meets and share their knowledge. Through those trips I’ve seen so much more of our wonderful coastline than I otherwise could have and have developed my skills by at times paddling outside my comfort zone in conditions above what my certified training covers. I had no expectation that those paddlers should take responsibility for me but was very grateful for the care they voluntarily showed. I‘m an adult and made the decision to join those paddles in full knowledge of the risks.
ISKA has enabled that, and its operating model has been based an oral tradition, trust and valuing experience and local knowledge as much as certification. It has encouraged training and certification but not defined its paddles around them.
As a committee member and symposium and meet organiser I would like to be indemnified against liability when I voluntarily do those things to the best of my ability. It seems to me that our national governing body should provide that, in the best interests of our sport.
However, if ISKA joins CI, or even if we don’t, the direction the committee is heading is to move away from paddles where people take responsibility for themselves, towards led paddles where a leader takes responsibility for the group.
Paddles will be lead by Leaders who are suitably skilled (not necessarily certified, experience does count, but a mechanism to „approve“ leaders is yet to be identified), who, with an Assistent are willing to accept a supervisory role of a group. And the group must accept this supervision. There’s some admin, a risk assessment, collecting names, etc, that’s annoying but not massive. But the leader will have to ensure that the group follows the guidance in the risk assessment, e.g. checks the experience levels of all so ratios are maintained, keeps within the appropriate conditions, etc.
I‘ve nothing against such led paddles, at times I’ll probably be happy to join them. But I believe there are many in ISKA who want to paddle in a group as equals, even if not with equal paddling skill, but taking responsibility for themselves, sharing the decisions, supporting each other without imposing liability on each other. As with led paddles, assessing the risks and responding, but paying less attention to certification levels and definition of paddles as beginner/intermediate/advanced and more attention to the prevailing conditions and demonstrated ability of the group on the day. Where everyone has a duty of care to everyone, as we would have in a paddle with friends, but a volunteer leader doesn’t have to take on a duty of care above and beyond that for the whole group.
On the Meets page of the website earlier this year we defined a Mixed Level Group paddle. While it does have a leader the onus is clearly placed on everyone taking part. Similarly the waiver was made more explicit and everyone attending the meet was required to register and accept the waiver. The third thing we did was write some risk assessments and this is where I diverge from the majority of the committee as I have concerns that it could push us towards led paddles.
Whether ISKA affiliates to CI or not, as CI is the national governing body, ISKA would be judged by CI policies on any incident. While CI has come a long way, with much improved sea-kayaking awards and guidelines, it still has some way to go.
My concern if ISKA affiliates is that the committee are trending towards conservatively interpreting CI guidelines rather than campaigning for CI to recognise and support the model ISKA has successfully and safely operated for 30 years.
Instead, I think the committee should continue the work that we’ve started with CI to get them to appropriately support sea-kayaking as an adventure sport leisure activity, e.g.
- CI only recognises 2 types of paddles; instructor-led and peer paddles ( I can’t find either on CI web now, but have seen it somewhere). Neither suit the ISKA model. We need CI to recognise and sanction a mixed level group paddle as described on https://www.iska.ie/meets/. While there is a leadership role, it is very different to a supervised instructor-led paddle. A volunteer should not have to supervise and take responsibility for the group, that responsibility should be shared across the group, with members accepting personal responsibility. CI should also document the various oral or email confirmations the ISKA committee have received about volunteer leaders not needing to have instructor qualifications, that experience counts.
- one ISKA generic risk assessment which covers sea-kayaking risks anywhere on the Irish coast should be sufficient for all meets. And the RA should not put all the responsibility on the leader, but share it. See the RA for the Clare meet. A „local risk assessment“ per meet should not be required. At ISKA meets, paddle routes are decided on the morning based on conditions and attendees. It’s not feasible to document specific routes and their risks for all likely paddles. It’s an unnecessary and onerous overhead not imposed on other similar adventure sports like mountaineering and cycling. Members of those clubs do not need to write RAs for each meet listing the specific gully they may climb or the gradient of a hill they may cycle on each time they meet up.
- stop using the CI training syllabus conditions as a threshold beyond which people are not insured to paddle unless supervised. The documented conditions are reasonable and well defined for the training syllabus, e.g. L3 conditions are up to F4 wind, up to 1.25m swell, up to 0.5m breaking surf, within 1 nautical mile of shore, no open crossings, up to 2 NM overalls. It’s good to have these guidelines for instructors supervising paddlers for a skills award. However leisure paddlers should be encouraged, but not REQUIRED to do training. And regardless of their level, doing a 6km open crossing to an offshore island in a F3 or paddling against a F5 for a short period may be well within their capability. But the fear of liability is leading to a conservative approach to satisfy all the CI training syllabus conditions for ISKA paddles. CI can help by making clear that these are not rules, but ballpark guidelines and that people can use judgement based on experience and exceed those and still be insured. To compare again with mountaineering, a hiker needs no training to climb Carrauntoohill, their insurance will still cover them.
- create a sea-kayak leadership award. Include skills for leading & shared leadership of peer and mixed-level-group paddles.
- reconsider guidance on max numbers on a trip. There have been suggestions of limiting to max 12 or 18 or 20 in various Risk Assessments and conversations with CI. Sometimes that makes sense, but not always. E.g. we had 23 at the Clare meet last week and decided there was really only one route option available and it was better to keep the group together rather than split up. It’s often the case that everyone wants to go on the same route, e.g. to the Saltees or to the Stags and if the conditions are calm, it’s possible to have oversight of a large group.
- ratios. ISKA paddles usually have a large number of experienced paddlers so likely exceed the recommended ratios - with the caveat above about the conditions being treated as ballpark rather than fixed rules.
ISKA should also campaign for CI to improve their insurance cover:
- document that it covers the UK/NI
- publicly provide all policy docs and schedules - we haven’t seen the personal accident policy doc or schedule, just the Third party liability policy.
- improve the Third party liability cover. CIs is €6.5M, MCI’s is €13M
- improve the personal accident cover (limited to €25K for only very serious injuries and limited to €1000 for medical costs)
By getting CI to sanction trips as ISKA has been running them would mean the insurance cover would apply.
Whether that can better be done within CI or from outside is up to you.
Whether we affiliate or not we should look for those CI changes, rather than change ISKA’s model to fit CI’s limitations. Our National Governing Body should be supporting us.
There will be openings on the committee at the end of this year. I’m stepping down, nothing to do with this, I’ve just done my share and it’s time for others to pick up the mantle. Whether you like or not the direction ISKA is going, please step up, join the committee and fight for the ISKA you want.
Fiona
ISKA Treasurer
Sea kayaking is an adventure sport.
I’ve been privileged that more experienced paddlers than I, have been willing to include me in their trips at ISKA meets and share their knowledge. Through those trips I’ve seen so much more of our wonderful coastline than I otherwise could have and have developed my skills by at times paddling outside my comfort zone in conditions above what my certified training covers. I had no expectation that those paddlers should take responsibility for me but was very grateful for the care they voluntarily showed. I‘m an adult and made the decision to join those paddles in full knowledge of the risks.
ISKA has enabled that, and its operating model has been based an oral tradition, trust and valuing experience and local knowledge as much as certification. It has encouraged training and certification but not defined its paddles around them.
As a committee member and symposium and meet organiser I would like to be indemnified against liability when I voluntarily do those things to the best of my ability. It seems to me that our national governing body should provide that, in the best interests of our sport.
However, if ISKA joins CI, or even if we don’t, the direction the committee is heading is to move away from paddles where people take responsibility for themselves, towards led paddles where a leader takes responsibility for the group.
Paddles will be lead by Leaders who are suitably skilled (not necessarily certified, experience does count, but a mechanism to „approve“ leaders is yet to be identified), who, with an Assistent are willing to accept a supervisory role of a group. And the group must accept this supervision. There’s some admin, a risk assessment, collecting names, etc, that’s annoying but not massive. But the leader will have to ensure that the group follows the guidance in the risk assessment, e.g. checks the experience levels of all so ratios are maintained, keeps within the appropriate conditions, etc.
I‘ve nothing against such led paddles, at times I’ll probably be happy to join them. But I believe there are many in ISKA who want to paddle in a group as equals, even if not with equal paddling skill, but taking responsibility for themselves, sharing the decisions, supporting each other without imposing liability on each other. As with led paddles, assessing the risks and responding, but paying less attention to certification levels and definition of paddles as beginner/intermediate/advanced and more attention to the prevailing conditions and demonstrated ability of the group on the day. Where everyone has a duty of care to everyone, as we would have in a paddle with friends, but a volunteer leader doesn’t have to take on a duty of care above and beyond that for the whole group.
On the Meets page of the website earlier this year we defined a Mixed Level Group paddle. While it does have a leader the onus is clearly placed on everyone taking part. Similarly the waiver was made more explicit and everyone attending the meet was required to register and accept the waiver. The third thing we did was write some risk assessments and this is where I diverge from the majority of the committee as I have concerns that it could push us towards led paddles.
Whether ISKA affiliates to CI or not, as CI is the national governing body, ISKA would be judged by CI policies on any incident. While CI has come a long way, with much improved sea-kayaking awards and guidelines, it still has some way to go.
My concern if ISKA affiliates is that the committee are trending towards conservatively interpreting CI guidelines rather than campaigning for CI to recognise and support the model ISKA has successfully and safely operated for 30 years.
Instead, I think the committee should continue the work that we’ve started with CI to get them to appropriately support sea-kayaking as an adventure sport leisure activity, e.g.
- CI only recognises 2 types of paddles; instructor-led and peer paddles ( I can’t find either on CI web now, but have seen it somewhere). Neither suit the ISKA model. We need CI to recognise and sanction a mixed level group paddle as described on https://www.iska.ie/meets/. While there is a leadership role, it is very different to a supervised instructor-led paddle. A volunteer should not have to supervise and take responsibility for the group, that responsibility should be shared across the group, with members accepting personal responsibility. CI should also document the various oral or email confirmations the ISKA committee have received about volunteer leaders not needing to have instructor qualifications, that experience counts.
- one ISKA generic risk assessment which covers sea-kayaking risks anywhere on the Irish coast should be sufficient for all meets. And the RA should not put all the responsibility on the leader, but share it. See the RA for the Clare meet. A „local risk assessment“ per meet should not be required. At ISKA meets, paddle routes are decided on the morning based on conditions and attendees. It’s not feasible to document specific routes and their risks for all likely paddles. It’s an unnecessary and onerous overhead not imposed on other similar adventure sports like mountaineering and cycling. Members of those clubs do not need to write RAs for each meet listing the specific gully they may climb or the gradient of a hill they may cycle on each time they meet up.
- stop using the CI training syllabus conditions as a threshold beyond which people are not insured to paddle unless supervised. The documented conditions are reasonable and well defined for the training syllabus, e.g. L3 conditions are up to F4 wind, up to 1.25m swell, up to 0.5m breaking surf, within 1 nautical mile of shore, no open crossings, up to 2 NM overalls. It’s good to have these guidelines for instructors supervising paddlers for a skills award. However leisure paddlers should be encouraged, but not REQUIRED to do training. And regardless of their level, doing a 6km open crossing to an offshore island in a F3 or paddling against a F5 for a short period may be well within their capability. But the fear of liability is leading to a conservative approach to satisfy all the CI training syllabus conditions for ISKA paddles. CI can help by making clear that these are not rules, but ballpark guidelines and that people can use judgement based on experience and exceed those and still be insured. To compare again with mountaineering, a hiker needs no training to climb Carrauntoohill, their insurance will still cover them.
- create a sea-kayak leadership award. Include skills for leading & shared leadership of peer and mixed-level-group paddles.
- reconsider guidance on max numbers on a trip. There have been suggestions of limiting to max 12 or 18 or 20 in various Risk Assessments and conversations with CI. Sometimes that makes sense, but not always. E.g. we had 23 at the Clare meet last week and decided there was really only one route option available and it was better to keep the group together rather than split up. It’s often the case that everyone wants to go on the same route, e.g. to the Saltees or to the Stags and if the conditions are calm, it’s possible to have oversight of a large group.
- ratios. ISKA paddles usually have a large number of experienced paddlers so likely exceed the recommended ratios - with the caveat above about the conditions being treated as ballpark rather than fixed rules.
ISKA should also campaign for CI to improve their insurance cover:
- document that it covers the UK/NI
- publicly provide all policy docs and schedules - we haven’t seen the personal accident policy doc or schedule, just the Third party liability policy.
- improve the Third party liability cover. CIs is €6.5M, MCI’s is €13M
- improve the personal accident cover (limited to €25K for only very serious injuries and limited to €1000 for medical costs)
By getting CI to sanction trips as ISKA has been running them would mean the insurance cover would apply.
Whether that can better be done within CI or from outside is up to you.
Whether we affiliate or not we should look for those CI changes, rather than change ISKA’s model to fit CI’s limitations. Our National Governing Body should be supporting us.
There will be openings on the committee at the end of this year. I’m stepping down, nothing to do with this, I’ve just done my share and it’s time for others to pick up the mantle. Whether you like or not the direction ISKA is going, please step up, join the committee and fight for the ISKA you want.
Fiona
ISKA Treasurer
-
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
This is an excellent post by Fiona and before casting your vote, I would encourage everyone to read it.
From an insurance perspective, getting our feet under the table of CI is unlikely to make any difference. The insurance market for adventure watersports is very small. For car and house insurance by example, there are many providers, you can shop around. I expect CI have little options available to them, little opportunity to shop around for better cover. Remember, in the grand scheme of things, our numbers are very small, a very small base to spread the cost for higher risk. CI can only offer what is available to them, there is no money in our game, the insurers are not interested in our business. I would expect better insurance is unlikely to ever be available to us.
For the reason's Fiona sets out, in my opinion, I believe it is too soon to join CI. However, that is not to say we walk away completely because we will be arguing this again in another 6 to 7 years. Perhaps the committee might consider canvassing all those who have led meets in the last 5 years and those hoping to do this into the future. Our voluntary leaders are the backbone of ISKA and we should be getting their input and agreement before changing the ISKA model and agreeing this with CI. Work with our own people that we rely on to lead our meets, then work with CI to agree to our specific needs.
I can only answer for myself, other leaders will have to make their own decision. I feel the new proposals move more responsibility and onus on leaders as opposed to group shared responsibility, while looking out for one another. I have not hesitated in the past when asked to assist or lead meets. For the new proposal and requirements, I am unlikely to volunteer again.
Where CI have previously acknowledged how we run meets is perhaps the standard, they are likely already on our side. If CI could just document and agree to that in writing, this could put most of the matters under discussion behind us once and for all. Affiliation should then be a given.
For now though, while perhaps almost there, I believe it is too soon to join CI, there is a little more work to do.
From an insurance perspective, getting our feet under the table of CI is unlikely to make any difference. The insurance market for adventure watersports is very small. For car and house insurance by example, there are many providers, you can shop around. I expect CI have little options available to them, little opportunity to shop around for better cover. Remember, in the grand scheme of things, our numbers are very small, a very small base to spread the cost for higher risk. CI can only offer what is available to them, there is no money in our game, the insurers are not interested in our business. I would expect better insurance is unlikely to ever be available to us.
For the reason's Fiona sets out, in my opinion, I believe it is too soon to join CI. However, that is not to say we walk away completely because we will be arguing this again in another 6 to 7 years. Perhaps the committee might consider canvassing all those who have led meets in the last 5 years and those hoping to do this into the future. Our voluntary leaders are the backbone of ISKA and we should be getting their input and agreement before changing the ISKA model and agreeing this with CI. Work with our own people that we rely on to lead our meets, then work with CI to agree to our specific needs.
I can only answer for myself, other leaders will have to make their own decision. I feel the new proposals move more responsibility and onus on leaders as opposed to group shared responsibility, while looking out for one another. I have not hesitated in the past when asked to assist or lead meets. For the new proposal and requirements, I am unlikely to volunteer again.
Where CI have previously acknowledged how we run meets is perhaps the standard, they are likely already on our side. If CI could just document and agree to that in writing, this could put most of the matters under discussion behind us once and for all. Affiliation should then be a given.
For now though, while perhaps almost there, I believe it is too soon to join CI, there is a little more work to do.
Re: EGM motions and documents
Either today or tomorrow, you should receive an email with the subject "Vote on ISKA Constitution and Canoeing Ireland Affiliation" from iskacommittee at gmail.com
This email will contain the details of how to cast your vote for the two proposals outlined above.
The process will work like this:
Best wishes,
John, Fiona, Rob, Conor
This email will contain the details of how to cast your vote for the two proposals outlined above.
The process will work like this:
- The email will contain a link to the voting form.
- Voting will open from 11:00 PM on Monday 7th July 2025.
- Voting will close at 7:00 PM on Monday 14th July 2025.
- Voting will be anonymous. The email will contain a unique token consisting of eight numbers/letters. You must enter this token without any changes on the voting form for your vote to be valid.
- If you submit your vote more than once, only your last submission will be considered.
- The vote is being invigilated by 4 invigilators, 2 from the current committee and 2 from previous committees:
- Rob Scanlon,
- Fiona Trahe
- John Dempsey
- Conor Smith
- The results will be posted here by 8pm on Monday 14th July 2025
Best wishes,
John, Fiona, Rob, Conor
Last edited by johnd on Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: EGM motions and documents
Well done Fiona, you bring a remarkable degree of clarity to such a difficult topic. Fifty shades of grey isn’t in it. You take us all way beyond the “four legs good, two legs bad” approach most of us were consigned to. I am a lot closer to understanding it all now much more clearly. Thank you.
Conor, you seem to know the liability insurance game. Have you an explanation for how Mountaineering ireland have peer to peer cover when paddlers don’t? Is it just numbers? M.I. has about 16,000 members is my understanding. Is that hugely more than I.C.U.? At €40 a pop, that’s in excess of half a million, annually, and no claims experience. Surely that is worth somebody’s bother. How many paddlers are there? This detail gets my goat.
Lastly, the Committee. As a professional and in real life, I have studied this “voluntary” end of what is termed “corporate governance” for more years than I like to admit, and I have to say that those promoting this agenda requiring a weighted majority (two thirds from recollection) for successful adoption, does them great credit. So does the confidential voting. So does the extended interval for voting. Democracy, to be real, has to be real in spirit and not just the letter. My hat is off to you. Most impressed. DWalsh
Conor, you seem to know the liability insurance game. Have you an explanation for how Mountaineering ireland have peer to peer cover when paddlers don’t? Is it just numbers? M.I. has about 16,000 members is my understanding. Is that hugely more than I.C.U.? At €40 a pop, that’s in excess of half a million, annually, and no claims experience. Surely that is worth somebody’s bother. How many paddlers are there? This detail gets my goat.
Lastly, the Committee. As a professional and in real life, I have studied this “voluntary” end of what is termed “corporate governance” for more years than I like to admit, and I have to say that those promoting this agenda requiring a weighted majority (two thirds from recollection) for successful adoption, does them great credit. So does the confidential voting. So does the extended interval for voting. Democracy, to be real, has to be real in spirit and not just the letter. My hat is off to you. Most impressed. DWalsh
-
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
As far as I know, CI insurance does have member-2-member cover. At least that’s how I interpret this in the Third-party-liability section under Conditions:
The inclusion of more than one person or organisation as Insured under this Policy will not in any way
remove the right of any one insured person or organisation to claim against another. This provision
however will not under any circumstances operate to increase or aggregate the limit of indemnity stated
in the Schedule
The inclusion of more than one person or organisation as Insured under this Policy will not in any way
remove the right of any one insured person or organisation to claim against another. This provision
however will not under any circumstances operate to increase or aggregate the limit of indemnity stated
in the Schedule
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:35 pm
Re: EGM motions and documents
HI Fiona, a trip would need to be an ISKA event ( Local meet or symposium) for members to be covered.
I would not be relying on CI insurance for peer paddles. This is something I will be taking up with CI once the vote is complete, either way. Many kayakers are already CI members and it would be good to see their money for membership also covering them for "peer" paddles, either organised in whatsapp groups or announced on club pages.
I would not be relying on CI insurance for peer paddles. This is something I will be taking up with CI once the vote is complete, either way. Many kayakers are already CI members and it would be good to see their money for membership also covering them for "peer" paddles, either organised in whatsapp groups or announced on club pages.