EGM motions and documents

[johnd]

@Tash

You quite correctly point out that

to qualify for CI insurance, some small changes will be required

However, do you realise that some meet organisers and trip leaders are not concerned about qualifying for CI insurance?

Personally, I think meet organisers and trip leaders should not be required to make some small changes.

It is my perception, from your previous posts, that you think meet organisers and trip leaders should be required to make some small changes.

Am I wrong?

[Tash]

John,

In response to your earlier email:

"ISKA is not like other kayaking clubs." - It's not like some clubs, and it's not unlike other clubs, but really that's beside the point. If there is an organisation and an individual or team organises an activity, they will be answerable if things go wrong.

"If I am leading a trip and another paddler decides to surf a reef that I think is dangerous, I have a duty of care to warn that paddler. If that paddler decides to ignore my warning and surf the reef regardless, I cannot be held negligent for any accident that results." - Agreed.

"if the ISKA committee reminds a meet organiser and/or trip leader of the CI guidelines, eg written risk assessments and trip plans, but the meet organiser and trip leaders decide to do the risk assessment and trip planning according to their own custom and practice, so be it. The committee cannot be held negligent." - Probably.

Both of those points are very valid John, but they are also missing the point.

The point is, to my mind, that (in my amateur legal opinion) it would be difficult to prove negligence or wilful endangerment of a meet organiser or committee member after an incident at an ISKA meet, however with the presence of "no cure, no fee" legal firms in the Irish market, an injured party may decide to test that assumption. Also, as I've said before, a bereaved family or someone with life-changing injuries might see little option but to try to recoup damages. They might ultimately fail to prove negligence, but that process could take years to work itself out, and could destroy the defendant or defendants. As things stand, that defendant would be all alone dealing with the situation, as ISKA doesn't have the capacity to support them.
On the other hand, in the context of CI affiliation, if we can demonstrate that "best practice" was followed, the insurance legal team will deal with the case, and the ISKA volunteers affected can get on with their lives.
To me, it's as simple as that.

There has been a lot of focus on negligence, but really it's just about "best practice". I put that in quotes deliberately because really it is a low bar, and standard ISKA practice is in many ways far better than "best practice", apart from a little record keeping and paperwork (that would be used as evidence that "best practice" was followed).

I have no desire to tell meet planners how to do their thing. Most of them are far far more experienced than I, all I have been trying to point out are the few small changes that would be required to allow them to easily demonstrate to an investigator that they do thing as well as we all know they already do.

"The direction of travel for ISKA is more important. This debate has been good, it has aired lots of opinions and differing points of view. What ISKA needs is a committee that will listen to what has been said and chart a way forward that takes account of the differing points of view." - As Fiona said, maybe the process could have been handled better, and brought regular trip leaders into the conversation sooner, but to be fair we are only a small committee with limited resources, and all regional reps (meet organisers) were involved. The advice I have received is that the meet organisers are the ones most at risk.
Nevertheless, I think we have given ample time for debate and discussion on this topic, and made the process as democratic as possible.
I don't think anyone can be justified to say that the committee has forced change on the organisation.

"Personally, I think meet organisers and trip leaders should not be required to make some small changes.
It is my perception, from your previous posts, that you think meet organisers and trip leaders should be required to make some small changes." - I think ISKA is a great organisation John, I love what it does. I wouldn't be devoting this much time to it if I didn't. I would be delighted if these changes weren't necessary, but in order to protect volunteers, I believe they need to be made.
It's not about should or shouldn't, it's just about what is necessary to make ISKA the kind of organisation more people can feel safe to volunteer their time with.

I didn't want any of this, but sometimes we have to make difficult decisions and do what needs to be done.

[Tash]

Chris,

I've lost track in all the threads, but I'm pretty sure this question has been answered more than once. You also have access to the same documents as everyone else.
See attached from the insurance document. This has also been confirmed in conversation and by email.

[johnd]

Tash,

Thanks for your long and honest reply. We agree on a lot of points. Most importantly that CI affiliation will provide (some) cover for meet organisers and leaders. There is some concern over the soundness of this but it is better than nothing in my opinion.

We disagree on some other points. I won't go into that any further.

I hope that it is possible for those with opposing views 'meet in the middle' when the dust settles. All who have contributed here, and many who have not, are passionate about ISKA and where it is going. Whatever happens, we need to find a way forward that is inclusive.

It has been said before but I will say it again: a big thanks to the committee for their efforts in bringing these motions forward and for arguing the case. It is not easy to put something on the table and have it critiqued. So well done.

John

[Tash]

I agree John.

We're all friends here, and we all want the best for ISKA. We may disagree on how best to achieve that, but it's important that we don't lose sight of the bigger picture, i.e. we're all here for our love of sea kayaking, and the camaraderie we find on the water.

[conorsmith]

Folks, I am only going to question here the soundness of CI suggesting ISKA can appoint qualified persons by experience and knowledge, without certification.

That to me sounds like an Insurance Broker telling a client, you may not have a driving licence, however you are experienced enough to drive your car and your insurance will cover you.

CI are only the middleman or akin to the insurance broker. I think it unsafe to suggest we are insured in such a scenario - such a departure from a norm should only be accepted from the Insurance Company. To do otherwise could be seen as reckless and creates other exposures?

At an absolute minimum, CI should confirm they “have this in writing from the insurer.” Or better again, CI should show us a copy of the insurer letter itself. Personally, I would look to see the insurer letter and take no comfort otherwise.

[JaneE]

I had decided not to comment further on any of these issues as I can't do it without writing a long post which I'm sure nobody will want to read. All I will say is that there are misunderstandings and inaccuracies being expressed on both sides about how the civil law operates in relation to fundamental concepts which are at the heart of all of this discussion such as duty of care, the law of unincorporated associations, negligence and insurance.

ISKA has a lot of cash reserves so for something as fundamentally important as this whole matter, I'm not sure why the ISKA committee didn't seek a legal opinion and basic guidance from a suitable litigation lawyer on the basis that it would be shared with the members prior to asking them to make any decision. Its a basic part of the information non-lawyers need in order to understand what the issues actually are. This is a complex area of law but most members don't understand even the basics of the legal principles involved. And frankly, why should they be expected to understand? I'm sure many people are doing their best to research and understand what they think the applicable bits of law are but this is inevitably fraught with errors and misunderstandings. Not an ideal foundation for making decisions.

Appointing Leaders

One thing I feel that I do need to point out is that CI and/or ISKA committee are not correct in their interpretation of the insurance policy wording if they think the definition of "Qualified Person" repeated a couple of posts above allows ISKA to appoint/accredit or nominate people that ISKA think have suitable experience to lead trips.

Based on the definition of "Qualified" that is included in paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 in that same section of the policy wording, it expressly excludes that possibility. A "Qualified Person" being appointed by a club must be "Qualified" and the definition of "Qualified" is limited and the lack of any kind of permissive wording in that definition has the effect of expressly not allowing the appointment of anyone based on experience or skills.

If there is a route for ISKA to appoint people based on experience and skills and if there is a route for them to be covered by the terms of this Professional Indemnity Policy then I think CI and/or the ISKA Committee still need to identify the wording or source for that position or need to explain why they interpret it the way they have done. The part of the policy reproduced in the posts on here expressly doesn't do that and seems to preclude ISKA from doing that.