I’m in agreement with Chris regarding 2/3rd majority vote.
Also the constitution and CI affiliation should be treated separately.
Two separate votes required.
Both proposals are serious enough to warrant that.
It’s definitely a sea change on how ISKA goes forward.
Many thanks,
Brian Mac
Proposed constitution for ISKA
-
conorsmith
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
Some further food for thought on this topic. The work and support providers give to ISKA and members is hugely important, and certainly including those on the committee. As best possible however, ISKA has always strived to be equitable and fair. If a small compromise is made for one, you blur the lines. Once you go down that road, where do you draw the next line? For one who does a few hours occasionally or perhaps for the one doing a day a month? Sure then why not stretch to the person doing only a weekend or two per month for the summer only? But then where do you stop?
As well as not wanting to compromise on our voluntary status, the rule was established to provide equity and fairness to all providers equally - it’s a long standing cornerstone that has rarely been breached and certainly not to the extent we now see.
With glaring conflicts, I look forward to seeing amendments to the proposed constitution before that is put to vote. If it is thought providers should be given committee access, the proposed constitution will have to be shelved pending member vote to approve a major structural change to how we operate. No committee has any such authority, regardless of makeup, to make such decisions and a 2/3rds vote has to be the minimum requirement.
With almost 300 members and possibly 3 positions to consider, is it not a weak argument to suggest replacements will not be found or we face collapse? Yes, people may be slow to take a role but we have always managed and remember, numbers today are far bigger than they have ever been.
To members in general, if you attend ISKA meets, you clearly get something from this wonderful association. For the most part, committee work takes little of your time, with approximately 12 years under my belt, I can attest to that. Perhaps you might consider giving something back and put your name forward as positions come available down the road?
As well as not wanting to compromise on our voluntary status, the rule was established to provide equity and fairness to all providers equally - it’s a long standing cornerstone that has rarely been breached and certainly not to the extent we now see.
With glaring conflicts, I look forward to seeing amendments to the proposed constitution before that is put to vote. If it is thought providers should be given committee access, the proposed constitution will have to be shelved pending member vote to approve a major structural change to how we operate. No committee has any such authority, regardless of makeup, to make such decisions and a 2/3rds vote has to be the minimum requirement.
With almost 300 members and possibly 3 positions to consider, is it not a weak argument to suggest replacements will not be found or we face collapse? Yes, people may be slow to take a role but we have always managed and remember, numbers today are far bigger than they have ever been.
To members in general, if you attend ISKA meets, you clearly get something from this wonderful association. For the most part, committee work takes little of your time, with approximately 12 years under my belt, I can attest to that. Perhaps you might consider giving something back and put your name forward as positions come available down the road?
-
Chris McDaid
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
100% agreement with Conor.
The proposed constitution should include a “no providers on the Committee” clause. Whichever way you look at it, it can be perceived a a conflict of interest.
I’d also suggest that the definition of a provider is as follows- “anyone who makes any financial gain from training, coaching or running assessments which is connected to sea kayaking in any way shape or form”
Cheers
Chris
The proposed constitution should include a “no providers on the Committee” clause. Whichever way you look at it, it can be perceived a a conflict of interest.
I’d also suggest that the definition of a provider is as follows- “anyone who makes any financial gain from training, coaching or running assessments which is connected to sea kayaking in any way shape or form”
Cheers
Chris
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
I’d gone further Chris, a clause should be added that no provider can hold membership of ISKA to avoid them profiting from being a member.
Sounds fair - being a member AND profiting from being a member by offering services - that is something we shouldn’t stand for. Saves any conflict. In fact we should inact a clause that allows providers that ARE members to be flogged at each meet for the mere suggestion of thinking about offering services!
Sounds fair - being a member AND profiting from being a member by offering services - that is something we shouldn’t stand for. Saves any conflict. In fact we should inact a clause that allows providers that ARE members to be flogged at each meet for the mere suggestion of thinking about offering services!
-
conorsmith
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
On a point of clarity, general membership has never been questioned. Co-opted without voting rights has always been encouraged.
@joerogan, your post is very disappointing, this is not helpful and should be removed immediately.
@joerogan, your post is very disappointing, this is not helpful and should be removed immediately.
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
I will uphold my point Connor. I find your comments about providers on the committee distasteful and bullish.
Each provider on the committee has given time and financial sacrifice to ensure ISkA and its continued operation. Not to mention the unselfish hours ground into creating and shaping a fair constitution.
This whole attack questioning commercial providers on the committee is nothing but an underhand attempt to try to undermine and dismiss the entire suggestion of a Constitution and protection of any volunteer on the committee.
If a small packet of you wish to bully a minority of unselfish committee members with no history or evidence of wrongdoing or profiteering or misusing positions, then the real shame falls on yourselves.
Each provider on the committee has given time and financial sacrifice to ensure ISkA and its continued operation. Not to mention the unselfish hours ground into creating and shaping a fair constitution.
This whole attack questioning commercial providers on the committee is nothing but an underhand attempt to try to undermine and dismiss the entire suggestion of a Constitution and protection of any volunteer on the committee.
If a small packet of you wish to bully a minority of unselfish committee members with no history or evidence of wrongdoing or profiteering or misusing positions, then the real shame falls on yourselves.
-
conorsmith
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
It’s been a longstanding policy set by the original founders. It has rarely been broken and only by one at a time for a very short period, as opposed to half the current committee. It is followed by a sister kayaking association for similar reasons.
No one is looking to take from the hard work the providers do nor the support they offer. It is too important to us, we just do not want to play around nor compromise equity and fairness. Not a big ask.
No one is looking to take from the hard work the providers do nor the support they offer. It is too important to us, we just do not want to play around nor compromise equity and fairness. Not a big ask.
-
Chris McDaid
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:35 pm
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
Joe,
No one is attempting to prevent a constitution, all that has been proposed is an amendment, nothing more. The Committee have chosen to ignore this amendment, which is extremely disappointing. The members should decide. ISKA is a voluntary run organisation, not a business.
FYI Conor has spent a total of around 12 years in total holding various committee positions and your insinuation that he, myself and others are trying to block a constitution is erroneous and derogatory to say the least. I suggest you withdraw that insinuation. An amendment was proposed, not a block.
Cheers
Chris
No one is attempting to prevent a constitution, all that has been proposed is an amendment, nothing more. The Committee have chosen to ignore this amendment, which is extremely disappointing. The members should decide. ISKA is a voluntary run organisation, not a business.
FYI Conor has spent a total of around 12 years in total holding various committee positions and your insinuation that he, myself and others are trying to block a constitution is erroneous and derogatory to say the least. I suggest you withdraw that insinuation. An amendment was proposed, not a block.
Cheers
Chris
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
Where was it written down? I’ve never seen that formally written.
If the issue is about fairness what is the issue with the current wording? Out of Courtesy all the current providers voluntarily do not provide commercial services to ISKA. That’s been formalised in the conflict of interest clause.
Problem is solved
If the issue is about fairness what is the issue with the current wording? Out of Courtesy all the current providers voluntarily do not provide commercial services to ISKA. That’s been formalised in the conflict of interest clause.
Problem is solved
Re: Proposed constitution for ISKA
The committee have not chosen to ignore it - that is an accusation what should be removed as a totally misleading comment. The clause and aspect has been discussed at length. Simple.Chris McDaid wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 9:16 pmJoe,
No one is attempting to prevent a constitution, all that has been proposed is an amendment, nothing more. The Committee have chosen to ignore this amendment, which is extremely disappointing. The members should decide. ISKA is a voluntary run organisation, not a business.
FYI Conor has spent a total of around 12 years in total holding various committee positions and your insinuation that he, myself and others are trying to block a constitution is erroneous and derogatory to say the least. I suggest you withdraw that insinuation. An amendment was proposed, not a block.
Cheers
Chris