Fiona, if only you were right, there’d be no debate, but I regret I agree with Rob. I feel you have the wrong end of the stick there. But the documentation is so opaque, who is to say? Any chance of clarification from Allianz ?
I don’t want to get into a potentially endless “it is, it isn’t” thing, but my best offering is that I feel it’s all about the definition of what they term “coaching”. And coaching means / includes instruction / leading, and requires formal qualification, subject to exception, and exceptions to needing formal qualification need to be spelled out in the policy, but they aren’t.
Sorry. That’s my best. DWalsh
EGM motions and documents BOTH NOT CARRIED)
-
conorsmith
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
@DaveWalsh, your previous query refers. I don't believe CI publish their member numbers, someone else closer to them might have the information to hand? However, from the early days on the committee, I had heard membership was circa 3,000. If that has doubled since, we are still way less than half of the numbers to Mountaineering Ireland. The insurable risks are also different.
Over the years I would expect CI have obtained more comprehensive insurance quotes. However, it is likely that cost was perhaps too onerous. The more specialist the insurance, the fewer the players in the market. If CI have been providing cover for the last 5 or more decades, they know their market, they know what price threshold and what benefit is acceptable to membership. No different to any other insurance, the more bells and whistles you add, the higher the price until it is over priced.
CI have been around since the 60s, I would expect we are where we are with regards to the level of cover that is available to us. Bringing another 200 or so into the fold after admin, costs and perhaps a little profit, is unlikely to be enough to sway insurance benefits.
And as Rob points out, CI will only cover sanctioned ISKA meets, i.e. for the current year that is only five get togethers.
Going back to Fiona's post though, I believe that should be the conversation we are having with our own leaders, then taking that to CI. If we can then get their agreement in writing, we are better protected than the current offering. If we are going to bring €6,000+ to the table, we should be making CI work for it and then look to affiliate. But not yet, I believe they should earn it.
Over the years I would expect CI have obtained more comprehensive insurance quotes. However, it is likely that cost was perhaps too onerous. The more specialist the insurance, the fewer the players in the market. If CI have been providing cover for the last 5 or more decades, they know their market, they know what price threshold and what benefit is acceptable to membership. No different to any other insurance, the more bells and whistles you add, the higher the price until it is over priced.
CI have been around since the 60s, I would expect we are where we are with regards to the level of cover that is available to us. Bringing another 200 or so into the fold after admin, costs and perhaps a little profit, is unlikely to be enough to sway insurance benefits.
And as Rob points out, CI will only cover sanctioned ISKA meets, i.e. for the current year that is only five get togethers.
Going back to Fiona's post though, I believe that should be the conversation we are having with our own leaders, then taking that to CI. If we can then get their agreement in writing, we are better protected than the current offering. If we are going to bring €6,000+ to the table, we should be making CI work for it and then look to affiliate. But not yet, I believe they should earn it.
Last edited by conorsmith on Mon Jul 07, 2025 7:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: EGM motions and documents
Peer paddles work fine when the weather and sea state are fine. If the weather turns and/or the sea state worsens, the risk of an incident increases. This is where peer paddles can fall apart. It can be difficult to get agreement from a group on what to do if an incident happens or may happen. This can be problematic.
If everything is going fine, a trip with a designated leader should work just like a peer paddle--you should not notice the leader within the group. However, when the risk of an incident increases, the designated leader needs to take control of the situation and make decisions. The rest of the group need ro accept the decisons of the leader.
ISKA has operated with informally appointed leaders to date, At most if not all of the ISKA meets I have attended, one or more 'leaders' have presented trips for members to 'sign up to'. I don't think of these trips as peer paddles.
The problem is CI (or its insurance company) doesn't officially recognise 'leaders'. I agree with Conor's point above: CI isn't going to suddenly officially recognise 'leaders' just because ISKA has decided to affiliate.
So what do we do in the meantime?
Regardless of how the EGM votes go, ISKA should adopt a less informal approach to recognising and/or appointing trip leaders. And, if the constitution is adopted, there should be a designated 'leaders officer' on the committee representing the views of 'trip leaders'.
John
If everything is going fine, a trip with a designated leader should work just like a peer paddle--you should not notice the leader within the group. However, when the risk of an incident increases, the designated leader needs to take control of the situation and make decisions. The rest of the group need ro accept the decisons of the leader.
ISKA has operated with informally appointed leaders to date, At most if not all of the ISKA meets I have attended, one or more 'leaders' have presented trips for members to 'sign up to'. I don't think of these trips as peer paddles.
The problem is CI (or its insurance company) doesn't officially recognise 'leaders'. I agree with Conor's point above: CI isn't going to suddenly officially recognise 'leaders' just because ISKA has decided to affiliate.
So what do we do in the meantime?
Regardless of how the EGM votes go, ISKA should adopt a less informal approach to recognising and/or appointing trip leaders. And, if the constitution is adopted, there should be a designated 'leaders officer' on the committee representing the views of 'trip leaders'.
John
Last edited by johnd on Mon Jul 07, 2025 6:59 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
fionatrahe
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
About 70% of attendees at both Streamstown and the Clare meet already had CI or PaddleNI insurance. So iSKA affiliating wouldn’t bring a lot of extra revenue to CI, about 55x30 = €1650.
-
brianmacmahon
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
Hi all,
Referencing John’s comment above, the proposed constitution does not properly recognise Leaders, without whom we cannot run ISKA meets.
If we vote the in the proposed constitution, we will need to run a further vote almost straight away to properly recognise our leaders.
Will that require 50% or 66% to carry?
We cannot vote in the proposed constitution in its current format, it needs to go back to the drawing board I’m afraid.
Many thanks
Brian Mac
Referencing John’s comment above, the proposed constitution does not properly recognise Leaders, without whom we cannot run ISKA meets.
If we vote the in the proposed constitution, we will need to run a further vote almost straight away to properly recognise our leaders.
Will that require 50% or 66% to carry?
We cannot vote in the proposed constitution in its current format, it needs to go back to the drawing board I’m afraid.
Many thanks
Brian Mac
Re: EGM motions and documents
Well said Fiona,
Members do need to fill the up coming committee postions, I myself will be stepping down as chair at the symposium, so please anyone that wishes to fill these positions please contact any committee member or send in an email
Beth
Members do need to fill the up coming committee postions, I myself will be stepping down as chair at the symposium, so please anyone that wishes to fill these positions please contact any committee member or send in an email
Beth
Re: EGM motions and documents
I just popped on here to point out something that came up on conversation today.
Please make sure you don't share your token/ code with anyone else. If you do, your vote can essentially be stolen. The same token can be used multiple times (to allow changes of mind) but only the last use of each unique token will be counted after voting closes. So please keep your code secret.
Please make sure you don't share your token/ code with anyone else. If you do, your vote can essentially be stolen. The same token can be used multiple times (to allow changes of mind) but only the last use of each unique token will be counted after voting closes. So please keep your code secret.
Re: EGM motions and documents
Hi Brian,
A leaders officer on the committee would be a good idea!
Sure we could just appoint one right now, but we could easily do away with one too! Having a constitution protects the existence of committee positions.
Choosing to vote against a constitution because the proposed constitution doesn't make reference to a leaders officer does not really make sense. Have a constitution so that we can establish a protocol for one and stick to it.
Back after the Dungarvan meet, ISKA affiliated to CI - there was no outcry then from those who are against it now, in fact those same people were in favour of affiliation - no widespread member consultation took place either.
I am not the first to have this idea but ISKA could develop its own leader training programme and hopefully that would give us more weight with CI. They already are well aware of the ECSKC system for developing club leaders and are positive towards it. Perhaps those paddlers with leadership experience in ISKA could help out here and have an input to that?
A leaders officer on the committee would be a good idea!
Sure we could just appoint one right now, but we could easily do away with one too! Having a constitution protects the existence of committee positions.
Choosing to vote against a constitution because the proposed constitution doesn't make reference to a leaders officer does not really make sense. Have a constitution so that we can establish a protocol for one and stick to it.
Back after the Dungarvan meet, ISKA affiliated to CI - there was no outcry then from those who are against it now, in fact those same people were in favour of affiliation - no widespread member consultation took place either.
I am not the first to have this idea but ISKA could develop its own leader training programme and hopefully that would give us more weight with CI. They already are well aware of the ECSKC system for developing club leaders and are positive towards it. Perhaps those paddlers with leadership experience in ISKA could help out here and have an input to that?
Re: EGM motions and documents
HI all
Just to clarify a few points that Fiona raised. Please read this as a conversation between friends.
Fiona writes: 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.
Sue: This approach is not changing. I am not sure what the oral tradition bit means except for the world class, wittiest of slagging that happens at meets
Fiona :
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.
Sue: No, I do not think we are. Individual responsibility is the core of every paddle on the water whether a club or solo trip. The leader's role is the same as it has always been - organise a safe and enjoyable paddle for the people in the group.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: There is no CI leadership award at present, which means ISKA is in a great position to state to CI what its needs are. The Sea Kayak Award Group (SKARG) would welcome the opportunity to develop such an award but is currently working on the new L5 Horizon skills award. Leadership award would be the next logical step for them. There is recognition that a leadership award is required across paddlesports - whether river or sea, SUP or open canoe. ISKA has a great opportunity to contribute to that or in the absence of and NGB leadership awards we could to develop our own.
It would be useful when the time comes for ISKA members to contribute to any consultation on leadership.
Saying that the group must 'accept this supervision' is not really how it works is it? A statement like reduces what ISKA trip leaders have done in the past and currently do to 'supervision'. It also promotes the feeling that trip participants are somehow less capable and in need of 'supervision' which is not the case. We all paddle together and look out for each other - it is everyone's job to 'supervise' or look out for their trip companions. Paddlers who wouldn't accept some kind of oversight within a group makes them a safety risk.
F: 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.
S: Yes, there is admin, even in the existing system. It is not just the leader who ensures we follow guidance in a risk assessment - individuals have personal responsibility to do so as well which is why RAs are published. - If the RA says wear a helmet entering a cave, and I don't, that is on me - not the trip leader.
Conditions change and we may be outside of stated conditions, that is where dynamic trip planning comes in, we we already do that. We are not negligent if conditions rise and we take appropriate steps to keep ourselves safe - that has happened on plenty of meets.
F: 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.
S: Again this already happens and is unlikely to change. It is what the committee wants too. While it is nice to think we will not impose liability on each other, we have not had to test this so far, it is only so far. This is not scaremongering, but a fact. I agree with Conor or Brian was it? When they said anyone with a mindset to sue can go and find another group to paddle with, or words to that effect. However, in extremis, we need protection.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: It would be great if this were true but sadly it is incorrect as has been explained in previous posts on duty of care.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: ISKA meets already have trip leaders who lead paddles. There is nearly always one or two people who participants will look to, did the Clare meet run on telepathy? The concept of mixed level paddles is valid and does need recognition, may be there will be developments on this in CI future? I don't know but hopefully it is an area that can be worked on. Having a Risk Assessment does not push us towards led paddles since we already have them. An RA makes everyone, not just the trip leader more aware of what potential risks may be there and that is a good thing. We can still paddle freely.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: I do not agree that we are as a committee being conservative. I agree that CI has a way to go on the leadership area and has historically not focused on recreational sea kayaking (as I and others have explained in previous posts) but thinking we can just campaign and make change is not that simple. It is not just CI who has responsibility for establishing guidelines and they do not have as much room to manoeuvre as we think. Sport Ireland is heavily involved in certification. What we are in a great position to do is canvass for our needs and we can do that if we are within the CI fold. Develop an ISKA leadership model for example (not my idea but a good suggestion)
Fiona: 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,
Sue: I definitely agree with you!
Fiona: - 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.
Sue: I like the idea of a mixed group paddle category but we can't ask CI to recognise our paddles as such without being affiliated. We have no voice from outside.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: We definitely want people to be responsible for themselves on a trip. We definitely want people to look out for others on a trip. They do not disengage their minds just because they are on a trip organised by ISKA. However ISKA organises meets, there are trip leaders who tell participants what the plan is, of course that can be changed but it doesn't remove the fact that there are trip leaders. The trip leader can of course ask others in the group to share the role.
Fiona: - 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.
Sue: Tash has already explained how an RA is for a meet location and they are few and pretty standard. Once done, they require minor if any changes each time. A trip leader does not do them, the meet officer does in collaboration with trip leaders if required. Of course the trip leader does the trip plan for the day which can change on the day depending on conditions. We can rail against other bodies not requiring RAs but that won't change where we are now. I am sure climbing meets run by other NGBs would RA the meet if not the individual climbs, especially if they have junior members, maybe they do not publish them.
Fiona: stop using the CI training syllabus conditions as a threshold beyond which people are not insured to paddle unless supervised.
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.
Sue: I do not think the conditions threshold negate insurance if proper care is taken and we are not negligent about them. Sea kayaking by its nature is governed by wind and swell. They can rise and fall in the less predictable micro scale where we operate while the large scale forecast may be benign. As we have heard in other posts, ISKA meets are held to the NGB standard whether we are affiliated or not should things go wrong. Also let us stop comparing mountaineering and sea kayaking. MCI insurance is not a fig leaf to protect the unskilled walker in challenging terrain. While they do not make training mandatory for insurance, their website is full of notices to get training, and pathways for training and we can be sure that NGB standards will be applied to club activities as they are in sea kayaking.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: I agree! but you can't have a group of 50 or more on the water at once. The Streamstown meet in 2024 had to have smaller groups of paddlers to manage the large numbers that went. There still is a need for sub groups and leaders for those. This involves ratios of some sort whichever way you look at it.
fiona: 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.
Sue: I agree but why would they bother listening to us if we are not affiliated? The only way we can have a voice is by being affiliated and having a constitution.
Sue: Personally I would like to express my sincere thanks to Fiona for her treasurer expertise and tireless commitment to ISKA over the years. She deserves life membership! We have agreed on more things than not, and always with respect, good humour, and friendship. Whatever the outcome of the vote, friendship, respect and a shared love of sea kayaking will continue.
Just to clarify a few points that Fiona raised. Please read this as a conversation between friends.
Fiona writes: 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.
Sue: This approach is not changing. I am not sure what the oral tradition bit means except for the world class, wittiest of slagging that happens at meets
Fiona :
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.
Sue: No, I do not think we are. Individual responsibility is the core of every paddle on the water whether a club or solo trip. The leader's role is the same as it has always been - organise a safe and enjoyable paddle for the people in the group.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: There is no CI leadership award at present, which means ISKA is in a great position to state to CI what its needs are. The Sea Kayak Award Group (SKARG) would welcome the opportunity to develop such an award but is currently working on the new L5 Horizon skills award. Leadership award would be the next logical step for them. There is recognition that a leadership award is required across paddlesports - whether river or sea, SUP or open canoe. ISKA has a great opportunity to contribute to that or in the absence of and NGB leadership awards we could to develop our own.
It would be useful when the time comes for ISKA members to contribute to any consultation on leadership.
Saying that the group must 'accept this supervision' is not really how it works is it? A statement like reduces what ISKA trip leaders have done in the past and currently do to 'supervision'. It also promotes the feeling that trip participants are somehow less capable and in need of 'supervision' which is not the case. We all paddle together and look out for each other - it is everyone's job to 'supervise' or look out for their trip companions. Paddlers who wouldn't accept some kind of oversight within a group makes them a safety risk.
F: 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.
S: Yes, there is admin, even in the existing system. It is not just the leader who ensures we follow guidance in a risk assessment - individuals have personal responsibility to do so as well which is why RAs are published. - If the RA says wear a helmet entering a cave, and I don't, that is on me - not the trip leader.
Conditions change and we may be outside of stated conditions, that is where dynamic trip planning comes in, we we already do that. We are not negligent if conditions rise and we take appropriate steps to keep ourselves safe - that has happened on plenty of meets.
F: 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.
S: Again this already happens and is unlikely to change. It is what the committee wants too. While it is nice to think we will not impose liability on each other, we have not had to test this so far, it is only so far. This is not scaremongering, but a fact. I agree with Conor or Brian was it? When they said anyone with a mindset to sue can go and find another group to paddle with, or words to that effect. However, in extremis, we need protection.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: It would be great if this were true but sadly it is incorrect as has been explained in previous posts on duty of care.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: ISKA meets already have trip leaders who lead paddles. There is nearly always one or two people who participants will look to, did the Clare meet run on telepathy? The concept of mixed level paddles is valid and does need recognition, may be there will be developments on this in CI future? I don't know but hopefully it is an area that can be worked on. Having a Risk Assessment does not push us towards led paddles since we already have them. An RA makes everyone, not just the trip leader more aware of what potential risks may be there and that is a good thing. We can still paddle freely.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: I do not agree that we are as a committee being conservative. I agree that CI has a way to go on the leadership area and has historically not focused on recreational sea kayaking (as I and others have explained in previous posts) but thinking we can just campaign and make change is not that simple. It is not just CI who has responsibility for establishing guidelines and they do not have as much room to manoeuvre as we think. Sport Ireland is heavily involved in certification. What we are in a great position to do is canvass for our needs and we can do that if we are within the CI fold. Develop an ISKA leadership model for example (not my idea but a good suggestion)
Fiona: 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,
Sue: I definitely agree with you!
Fiona: - 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.
Sue: I like the idea of a mixed group paddle category but we can't ask CI to recognise our paddles as such without being affiliated. We have no voice from outside.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: We definitely want people to be responsible for themselves on a trip. We definitely want people to look out for others on a trip. They do not disengage their minds just because they are on a trip organised by ISKA. However ISKA organises meets, there are trip leaders who tell participants what the plan is, of course that can be changed but it doesn't remove the fact that there are trip leaders. The trip leader can of course ask others in the group to share the role.
Fiona: - 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.
Sue: Tash has already explained how an RA is for a meet location and they are few and pretty standard. Once done, they require minor if any changes each time. A trip leader does not do them, the meet officer does in collaboration with trip leaders if required. Of course the trip leader does the trip plan for the day which can change on the day depending on conditions. We can rail against other bodies not requiring RAs but that won't change where we are now. I am sure climbing meets run by other NGBs would RA the meet if not the individual climbs, especially if they have junior members, maybe they do not publish them.
Fiona: stop using the CI training syllabus conditions as a threshold beyond which people are not insured to paddle unless supervised.
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.
Sue: I do not think the conditions threshold negate insurance if proper care is taken and we are not negligent about them. Sea kayaking by its nature is governed by wind and swell. They can rise and fall in the less predictable micro scale where we operate while the large scale forecast may be benign. As we have heard in other posts, ISKA meets are held to the NGB standard whether we are affiliated or not should things go wrong. Also let us stop comparing mountaineering and sea kayaking. MCI insurance is not a fig leaf to protect the unskilled walker in challenging terrain. While they do not make training mandatory for insurance, their website is full of notices to get training, and pathways for training and we can be sure that NGB standards will be applied to club activities as they are in sea kayaking.
Fiona: 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.
Sue: I agree! but you can't have a group of 50 or more on the water at once. The Streamstown meet in 2024 had to have smaller groups of paddlers to manage the large numbers that went. There still is a need for sub groups and leaders for those. This involves ratios of some sort whichever way you look at it.
fiona: 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.
Sue: I agree but why would they bother listening to us if we are not affiliated? The only way we can have a voice is by being affiliated and having a constitution.
Sue: Personally I would like to express my sincere thanks to Fiona for her treasurer expertise and tireless commitment to ISKA over the years. She deserves life membership! We have agreed on more things than not, and always with respect, good humour, and friendship. Whatever the outcome of the vote, friendship, respect and a shared love of sea kayaking will continue.
-
Chris McDaid
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: EGM motions and documents
“ Sue: I agree but why would they bother listening to us if we are not affiliated? The only way we can have a voice is by being affiliated and having a constitution”
We were affiliated before, they didn’t listen then. In fact we were given assurances by CI’s CEO during a face to face meeting with myself and Conor at Dungarvan. None of the assurances came to fruition, which is why we didn’t continue with affiliation. To be precise, CI’s CEO was invited to 3 Symposiums and twice invited to Streamstown. It took 3 years for them to even show up. CI is the governing body, they’ve had years to get their finger out regarding sea kayaking. The failure to do so is on them, not ISKA.
NB. The CEO at that meeting admitted that ISKA was light years ahead of CI when it comes to sea kayaking. I don’t see that there’s been any change since. I quote CI’s CEO “we couldn’t do this, it’s very clear that you guys are very good at what you do”
Cheers
Chris
We were affiliated before, they didn’t listen then. In fact we were given assurances by CI’s CEO during a face to face meeting with myself and Conor at Dungarvan. None of the assurances came to fruition, which is why we didn’t continue with affiliation. To be precise, CI’s CEO was invited to 3 Symposiums and twice invited to Streamstown. It took 3 years for them to even show up. CI is the governing body, they’ve had years to get their finger out regarding sea kayaking. The failure to do so is on them, not ISKA.
NB. The CEO at that meeting admitted that ISKA was light years ahead of CI when it comes to sea kayaking. I don’t see that there’s been any change since. I quote CI’s CEO “we couldn’t do this, it’s very clear that you guys are very good at what you do”
Cheers
Chris