www.iska.ie

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

I can see that you don't want to continue to help us understand the details of CI's requirements for ISKA affiliation as you are effectively shutting down all of the discussion with your post. That is disappointing.

Since I had already drafted a reply to your previous post I am posting that now. I see that it will not be of interest to you but there will be others who are interested.

As things currently stand CI have mechanisms to affiliate clubs. There is no published information that I have managed to find about whether they have the competence to affiliate other unincorporated associations using a different model, structure and requirements. A lot of the responses to questions on here have given the clear impression that ISKA will be treated as a club by CI but its not clear whether their normal affiliation requirements will apply in part or in full or not at all.

There doesn't seem to have been any insurance broker information about how their insurer will cover a deviation from their standard affliiated club model and this issue of deemed leader competence. Their insurance cover and premium will have been calculated on the basis of how they've told their insurer that they do things and what they require clubs to do. So any deviation from that would mean a conversation with the broker and insurer to make sure they are happy to cover that arrangement and to make any adjustment in premium or conditions if the insurer perceives a variation in the risk calculation. Coinor has a career's worth of experience in the insurance industry - it would be wise to take his comments on board and investigate those further unless someone on the ISKA committee can already rival his expertise - apologies in advance if that is the case and I have been unaware of that.

All clubs must meet certain standards and follow the "rules' set down for them by CI as a condition of affiliation. Its much wider than just how you run trips. This is the same for every NGB in every sport - if you want to be in their 'gang' you have to do what they tell you. For clubs, CI have a whole affiliation section on their website with requirements and documents such as a suggested draft constitution. For what irts worth, my personal opinion (coming from a legal background) is that the draft sample club constitution provided by CI is a much more comprehensive, useful and well-drafted one than the draft constitution provided to the ISKA members which I think will ultimately create more problems than it solves.

The excerpt of the CI terms and conditions you'd posted last night is formal and legal in tone and seems to be part of a larger document which is why I am asking the questions about it. Its not as informal. The excerpt doesn't seem to contain details of all the aspects that have been drafted into the summary document and as I'm sure the committee appreciate, the devil is always in the detail of these things.

There are various governance and safeguarding requirements imposed on affiliated clubs by CI and that's why I'm asking what has been agreed with CI in relation to ISKA. Either ISKA is going to be required to follow their existing requirements for an affiliated club or they have agreed a different arrangement for ISKA. I'm sure the Committee will have fully investigated all of this and the CI standard club affiliation requirements so it should be easy to confirm exactly what model of affiliation ISKA will have, to show members the final document/list of written affiliation requirements from CI (as agreed over the period of emails etc) with the precise wording agreed with CI in addition to the informal interpretive summary written by the committee to assist the members and finally the written insurance beroker confirmations relating to cover for ISKA if its not being treated as a normal affiliated club.

Incidentally, I suspect this area of 'deemed leader competence' is going to present a potential liability minefield for ISKA and the individuals who are appointed to make the decisions. I don't think I've seen anything explaining how that's going to be done within ISKA - I might have missed it. Has a process and evidenced competence standards for those making the decisions been agreed with CI and their insurers?