It's part of the initial discussion with CI.
There is no point in publishing the whole conversation as it went around in circles over months.
The final outcome of the discussion is basically what's in the documents we've already shared.
EGM motions and documents
Re: EGM motions and documents
So as I understand, at some point over a period of months CI have given the Committee some kind of formal, written affiliation terms and conditions or written requirements for affiliation at some early stage in the discussions. So my assumption would be that they expect ISKA to formally agree affiliation terms in writing? Much like any other affiliated club might be bound by a set of written CI rules.
Those discussions over the months have (or may have) resulted in changes to what was in that draft document? So is there a finalised version of the document that CI will require ISKA to agree to on affiliation to govern what is permitted in relation to all of their paddling activities? Does it cover governance, garda vetting and so on - all the usual aspects of affiliated club existence that CI impose requirements for.
You've said that "The final outcome of the discussion is basically what's in the documents we've already shared".
The documents shared are CI's insurance documents and the paper proposing affiliation. The final version of the draft of all the terms of affiliation from CI isn't there unless I'm missing it somewhere. This is the document that a number of members have been asking about and would want to see for themselves because they have many personal experiences of CI not delivering what they've said they would. And as members of an unincorporated association effectively they are the ones who will be agreeing to the terms of the CI document.
Where you've said that the final outcome of the affiliation terms and conditions is "basically" what is written in the Committee's proposal for affiliation document, does that mean its identical to what's in that document or is it different in any way? If so how is it different?
Perhaps the Committee might consider providing a copy of the finalised, written terms of affiliation that have been agreed with CI rather than a summary that is "basically" what has been agreed. I don't think the committee should under-estimate the level of distrust of CI that exists amongst a significant group of members - especially many of the experienced ones you rely on for running meets and leading trips.
Many thanks and apologies for the further questions.
Those discussions over the months have (or may have) resulted in changes to what was in that draft document? So is there a finalised version of the document that CI will require ISKA to agree to on affiliation to govern what is permitted in relation to all of their paddling activities? Does it cover governance, garda vetting and so on - all the usual aspects of affiliated club existence that CI impose requirements for.
You've said that "The final outcome of the discussion is basically what's in the documents we've already shared".
The documents shared are CI's insurance documents and the paper proposing affiliation. The final version of the draft of all the terms of affiliation from CI isn't there unless I'm missing it somewhere. This is the document that a number of members have been asking about and would want to see for themselves because they have many personal experiences of CI not delivering what they've said they would. And as members of an unincorporated association effectively they are the ones who will be agreeing to the terms of the CI document.
Where you've said that the final outcome of the affiliation terms and conditions is "basically" what is written in the Committee's proposal for affiliation document, does that mean its identical to what's in that document or is it different in any way? If so how is it different?
Perhaps the Committee might consider providing a copy of the finalised, written terms of affiliation that have been agreed with CI rather than a summary that is "basically" what has been agreed. I don't think the committee should under-estimate the level of distrust of CI that exists amongst a significant group of members - especially many of the experienced ones you rely on for running meets and leading trips.
Many thanks and apologies for the further questions.
-
conorsmith
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
Hi Rob, I don’t believe it is necessary to produce the copious notes from your various discussions. However, certainly I believe it important to provide written copy of actual correspondence from CI where they verify the situation in regard to who can lead meets. This must be backed by Insurer verification also, CI notes alone are not sufficient. If it is not written down, then you have to assume it does not apply.
If we refer alone back to the two posts that Tash shared and specifically:
- “Qualified Person means a Qualified person appointed by the club”
- “Club Leader - a designated leader deemed competent”
A reasonable person would deem this to mean qualified being someone holding certification. No different to car insurance referenced previously by example, a qualified person is deemed to mean someone holding an appropriate driving licence.
Jane’s comment on the previous page points to insurance wording that appears to exclude an option to randomly appoint anything other than certified leaders.
So please, if you have written confirmation backed by Insurance Company agreement to this and other matters raised further by Jane above, the members should be allowed to see this.
In actual fact, all we need to see is a letter/email/memo from Arachas. That should be no more than a single page and can clear up this specific matter on leadership. Can you share this please?
These questions should have nothing to do with current vote. We need this information to know who can be insured however the vote falls, whether applicable now or picked up again at a later date.
If we refer alone back to the two posts that Tash shared and specifically:
- “Qualified Person means a Qualified person appointed by the club”
- “Club Leader - a designated leader deemed competent”
A reasonable person would deem this to mean qualified being someone holding certification. No different to car insurance referenced previously by example, a qualified person is deemed to mean someone holding an appropriate driving licence.
Jane’s comment on the previous page points to insurance wording that appears to exclude an option to randomly appoint anything other than certified leaders.
So please, if you have written confirmation backed by Insurance Company agreement to this and other matters raised further by Jane above, the members should be allowed to see this.
In actual fact, all we need to see is a letter/email/memo from Arachas. That should be no more than a single page and can clear up this specific matter on leadership. Can you share this please?
These questions should have nothing to do with current vote. We need this information to know who can be insured however the vote falls, whether applicable now or picked up again at a later date.
Re: EGM motions and documents
All of the information from our meandering discussions were distilled down into the document called "The case for CI affiliation".
A draft of that was shared with CI, and after a couple of small corrections, they agreed that it is factually accurate. Therefore the process for choosing leaders etc. as described in that document has been approved by CI.
I don't know or understand the comments about contracts between clubs and CI.
Maybe we all have to individually sign in blood and sell our souls to the devil?
A draft of that was shared with CI, and after a couple of small corrections, they agreed that it is factually accurate. Therefore the process for choosing leaders etc. as described in that document has been approved by CI.
I don't know or understand the comments about contracts between clubs and CI.
Maybe we all have to individually sign in blood and sell our souls to the devil?
-
conorsmith
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: EGM motions and documents
Tash, I can only guess the amount of work that has been done and I do not envy you the task. We had somewhat similar 7 years ago.
Focusing here only on uncertified leadership, anything CI say must have been verified by the insurance company Arachas, it is worthless otherwise. To protect the members, I don't think it too much to ask for a copy of that correspondence?
It cannot be more than one page and I am baffled by the reluctance to share this - do CI even have it?
Focusing here only on uncertified leadership, anything CI say must have been verified by the insurance company Arachas, it is worthless otherwise. To protect the members, I don't think it too much to ask for a copy of that correspondence?
It cannot be more than one page and I am baffled by the reluctance to share this - do CI even have it?
Re: EGM motions and documents
Everything of relevance has been shared.
We have assurances from CI.
If CI have made assurances that their insurer won't endorse, that's on them. If it came to it, we could sue CI for falsely informing us... but it won't come to that. CI is the NGB. They set the standards that the insurance companies measure by.
I don't know what more we can say or show to convince you.
It is what it is now. We've all done our best to state our various positions and opinions.
Let the members decide now.
We have assurances from CI.
If CI have made assurances that their insurer won't endorse, that's on them. If it came to it, we could sue CI for falsely informing us... but it won't come to that. CI is the NGB. They set the standards that the insurance companies measure by.
I don't know what more we can say or show to convince you.
It is what it is now. We've all done our best to state our various positions and opinions.
Let the members decide now.