When I saw the new initiative, I for one immediately went looking for cover, insurance cover. I tried the independent site, but got nowhere on-line. There is a phone number and I would have tried that when I get the chance, only that when I contacted ICU it was so easy to join and get immediate cover from them I took it. And it cost €20.00 not €30.00.
Neither the cost nor having liability type cover for myself was ever the issue for me. The prices quoted last year by Alan were very reasonable and so it has turned out. ICU (Vicky) told me I was immediately covered as a foot soldier and would be immediately covered as a leader if and for so long as I obey the terms and conditions that apply, because I am a level 5 with a level 4 instructorship bolted on. She tells me that all I need (I haven’t the patience for reading the fine print) is to get my first aid back up to “current”, child protection clearance from the Gardaí “current”, not go out in foul weather (no argument there), and obey the ratio rules (she told me what they are but I forget, I never did much bother with them anyway).
Which leaves me as a common or garden paddler unable to lead anyone anywhere if insurance considerations are driving things.
I have no problem obtaining whatever insurance is reasonably available, and I doubt that whatever ICU have is likely to be bettered, be it adequate or not. I think everyone should have insurance the same way I think everyone should have a tow rope, though I admit I feel stronger about the tow rope. First aid too, not necessarily current etc (the thought of donating a weekend of my life to all that is just too depressing). People have a moral duty not unnecessarily to be a burden to others, by which I mean issues with one way traffic – you look after me but I’ll not cover you.
I do have a problem dictating to others that they must (i.e. not should) have insurance. What worries me is that insurance for leadership seems unavailable without the proper qualifications. I have the qualifications (or could have with what some will regard as minimal effort) but I am very conscious that a lot of very good paddlers just plain don’t want to get into the system. My partner for 25 years never had a hint of qualifications. I have always detected very negative waves about the whole business of qualifications from him and from many others. With Fred Cooney I came into kayaking from climbing in about 1990 and there was a very negative qualifications orientated environment among that lot at that time. I personally got converted, primarily by Humphrey Murphey and Stephen Hannon, but Fred didn’t. And I always respected that. I respect that.
What we have here is a square peg and a round hole. There are many available leaders who have the ability and skill sets and the qualifications and want to lead and want to be insured for their leading and have gotten used to being so insured (“the qualifieds”). As against that there are many available leaders who have the ability and skill sets but not the qualifications and they too want to lead and know they can’t be insured for their leading and it hasn’t ever and doesn’t bother them (“the unqualifieds”). Both cohorts have coexisted peaceably for a quarter of a century without issue, but now a problem has arisen. Circumstances are now changed. Something new somewhere in the requirements of the insurance underwriters or within ICU or within ISKA (it really doesn’t matter which) requires an “all duck or no dinner” insurance policy, where either everyone is insured all the time for paddling or leading, or noone is covered at any time*****. Therefore either the qualifieds agree to paddle and lead uninsured or the unqualifieds agree to paddle but to give up leading. Neither cohort is going to be happy.
The problem needs to be resolved by consensus. That doesn’t seem possible, and the nearest alternative is my favourite, “democracy”. The matter is being put to a vote of the membership, which is how democracy operates on a day to day basis. The worst possible outcome of the vote would or at least might be a 51%/49% split, because democracy is “litmus tested” by the willingness of the minority to accept the wishes of the majority. 51% is a win in a boardroom, but a win isn’t or shouldn’t be what anyone is after in a voluntary organisation. Keeping the organisation together after a turbulent headcount might be a serious challenge. An earlier contributor has already identified this as the primary issue.
If I understand things right, after this vote, one or other cohort will end up either unable (the unqualifieds) or unwilling (the qualifieds) to lead trips on ISKA meets, and will have to stand back and leave the other lot to do it all. Whether the disappointed cohort swallow their disappointment and get on with things, or walk away, that is the question. Not only the leaders personally on either side of the debate, but some of their supporters too seem quite passionate about the principle of it all. I said earlier last year that I hate democracy, but had I known the debate would go on so long and dig in so deep, I’d have clarified, I hate the trappings of democracy when they get confused with and passed off as democracy.
Getting away from the broad principles of the problem, there are some specific quibbles / questions :
- # Has the coexistence of liability insurance and a Waiver of liability been thoroughly looked at? It is possible to fall through the cracks with such potentially conflicting ways of addressing things. It is possible to generate a situation where the Waiver prevents liability arising so no need for the insurance. Tricky territory ……………..
# Peer paddling isn’t covered it seems but it probably isn’t available.
# When I had a little look into all this last year I concluded that one absolutely majorly important issue was “tasters” where potential newcomers come along and paddle with the group and if they fit in they join up. Not join up and come along and paddle and keep their fingers crossed. I found there was a tension between tasters and having qualified leaders. Without qualified leaders, tasters are less available. It’s a trade off. Tasters seems to have been parked by the Committee, presumably with good reason. I imagine this is part of the nitty gritty bargained over just before the handshake. Three tasters per newcomer is apparently about as much as is ever allowed. Three is fairly “policing” free. Anything less is an administrative headache.
# Directors’ insurance is a good idea independent of all this, and not really related, if I understand things right?
***** Quite common. Its a cheaper business model. Club members can't cherry pick who is and isn't insured.