A reminder to all that the SCA AGM is scheduled for Saturday 15th November, 2014. Venue and times still to be confirmed. At this AGM there will be a requirement to elect Board Members including General Secretary and Affiliated Club Director. It is not clear from published records if Ordinary Director positions are available and the Board will always retain at least one Board position for Co-Option. Current Board Members are entitled to be re-nominated or you could propose alternatives.
General Secretary & Ordinary Directors nominees require to be nominated in writing endorsed by the signatures of 10 Full SCA Members along with a pen portrait for the Nominee.
Affiliated Club Director requires endorsement from an Affiliated Club, this may require verification by witness of Club Committee Records to demonstrate due process along with a pen portrait for the Nominee.
Positions to be held for 2 years from 2014 AGM and candidates may stand for subsequent re-election.
Please note that Nomination Documentation must be with the SCA Office a minimum of 42 days prior to AGM, i.e. by my calculations Friday 3rd October.
So guys 4 weeks to get things sorted, get nominations, collect signatures, prepare pen portrait and submit to the office. For Club nominations it would be worthwhile convening a Club Committee or Open Meeting and recording the discussion and result.
In similar open membership organisations it is normal for the Chief Executive to issue a formal calling notice, however to date we have seen little evidence of such from SCA Administration. However they will use published notice periods as per the Articles to reject late applicants.
If you want to influence or change the direction and strategy of the Association now is the time to start planning and recruiting those of a similar persuasion.
CD
PS - It is also time to nominate the Slalom Committee, whilst I understand there is a lot of angst within the current committee I would like to stress that slalom in Scotland has never been stronger, we have more participants (who else can remember when we have been closing entries in advance of the event!), we have a strong supporting structure developing paddlers with volunteers working under the SCOTs banner supporting events and developing paddlers including the organisation of 3 separate training camps in France covering a range of ability, we have a good voluntary Team Management that not only guided and organised the Team for the Pan Celtic races but supported Scottish paddlers racing at Solkan in the ECA Junior Cup. I would support the re-nomination of the current committee, however I do understand that the best part of banging your head against a brick wall is when you stop. Unfortunately there are elements of the sport outwith their control, for that we will require to have greater influence and support at Board level.
SCA Democratic Influence
-
Jerry Tracey
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:09 am
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
SCA members are currently being bombarded with e-mails and literature from the SCA board and its president, urging us to vote against 14 special resolutions. Those proposing these include some well-known names from the Scottish slalom scene. Would it be possible for those involved to put their case on here in order to help us to reach an informed decision?
Best Wishes!
Jerry.
Best Wishes!
Jerry.
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
Apologies for the long winded response, there are links posted to both the Board representation and background to the raising of the Motions. Unfortunately the motions were drafted during holiday period as they required to be submitted to the Board in August. During initial drafting a range of people were involved and consulted including various Technical Committee volunteers, Honorary Officials, past and present paddlers from sea to river incorporating recreational paddler to Olympic and World Medalists.
The below is my own personal view on the proposals, initially put forward as Agenda items under Article 8.1 – Any item of business which any Member entitled to vote wishes to have placed on the Agenda should be intimated in writing to the Association by 15th August prior to the Annual General Meeting in each year. This in order to promote discussion and engagement with the wider membership, with reports of intimidation to staff; volunteers, young paddlers and Board Representatives from various parties on both sides of the debate.
1- Article 7.2 (b)
I cannot support this Motion, the Board is responsible for running the Company and hence must be free to amend remits, guidelines etc. to suit without encumbrance for a GM to endorse. Albeit with transparency and open communication there should be more background explanation to requirement for change or implementation.
2- Amendments to SCA Documents
I cannot support this Motion, changes to the current Articles must be performed within the current Articles. Hence the detail must be published for AGM endorsement. Many of the Policy documents may be required to support or facilitate ongoing funding and business. Hence they should be able to be amended without extended delay to promote the potential opportunities provided to support the Association. Again if the SCA Board are to undertake the Seven Principals then such documents should be considered well in advance and subjected to open discussion, accountable justification and subsequent amendment.
3- Section 4.2 (d)
I will support this motion but again I think there should be flexibility to amend. It is not clear who the Honorary Members are, if we mean the Honorary President and Vice-Presidents then we should state as such. However I do agree that a reasonable reason is provided and that there should be a right for appeal/arbitration. It may be that this Motion be considered further with SportScotland on provision of a confidential whistle blowing policy and an independent body for such arbitration.
4- Article 11.2
I cannot support this Motion, similar to the above this is the Article that allows the Board to delegate disciplinary measures and ensure that no individual or group may subvert the general good. This is the section that would be required were the Board to decide that they will have a working week away in the Bahamas at SCA Expense and then seek to pass the Company into Administration.
5- Pinkston Funding
I cannot support this Motion, this effectively calls for either the SCA to deplete required reserves and increase the risk to the Association to default. As a Company limited by guarantee we have very limited Credit Rating (circa £3000), a cash reserve is not necessarily cash in the bank but may be fluid and used to ensure cash flow and payment of debtors and staff in due time. We have suffered previously with delays to Grant payment resulting in significant cash flow issues to the Association. To provide revenue payment to Pinkston may add circa £5/member to membership rates for a single site that may not be attractive nor provide a viable facility to a significant portion of the membership.
However I can understand the desire for greater SCA involvement and the strategic benefits to properly establishing a strong Club and presence in the Pinkston facility. Following the establishment of Breadalbane CC with support from SCA and SCA Performance Coaches etc., Pinkston offers an opportunity to take the model to the next level with a far greater catchment population and the nearby availability of tertiary and higher education. Such a development could see a strong base with facilities and peers to see competition paddlers remain within Scotland and promote a hub of excellence that could match and rival the current developments in Nottingham; Lee Valley and Cardiff. I remain concerned that despite the discussion at the 2013 AGM and the official opening of Pinkston in May, that the Board minutes from June demonstrate a lack of engagement between nominated SCA Representative and Scottish Canals. Albeit the clear and positive engagement of various technical committees, clubs and volunteers to progress access and utilisation of the site.
6- Grandtully Lease
Allocation of costs should be an easy matter for the Treasurer to define. I do not understand why this has not been re-allocated to the overall Grandtully Campsite budget. However I will not support the motion as if the costs are allocated to Slalom then there is an onus on slalom to recoup. Hence Slalom would be in a position to charge events for use of the bankside facilities e.g. 7 days slalom @ e.g. £50/day, add on similar charge to WWR and Marathon races. Establish an honesty system – similar to campsite for use of the gates, with potential for local and regular users to purchase season tickets and establish a charge to SCA Performance for training days and camps (e.g. £20 /day so circa £400-500/year on sample programme included in performance criteria document). This could generate a surplus that could be used for equipment maintenance and replacement or to offset costs to key performing athletes. I suspect (from past precedent) that if proposals were drafted and set forward for implementation SCA office and Grandtully campsite may rapidly change tack. So whilst I recognise the view I believe that further options may be discussed and progressed without AGM business.
It may also be remembered that the lease was established as a requirement to support the funding for the Campsite Development. It also provided the security of River access at Grandtully long before the Land Reform Act, indeed it was cited by many as an example of how the various parties could co-exist and hence justification for the underlying premise of the Land Reform Act on mutual responsible access. The transfer of the lease fee to Slalom was undertaken as a unilateral decision and has been the subject to frequent challenge and discussion. Indeed the initial transfer lead to various charges against Slalom Committee for failure to achieve agreed budget despite their lack of knowledge that additional costs had been added to their budget from central Treasury. However there are opportunities to recoup the costs from slalom paddlers at a reasonable rate.
7- Technical Committee Funding
I cannot support this Motion, as an SCA Member I am involved in a number of disciplines and technical committee business. I should not have to specify a particular benefactor. The policy is and has been for some time that Technical Committees develop their own funding to provide a break even. There are many options on how this is undertaken and slalom have been particularly good at undertaking this through levies on entry fees and in establishing communal corporations to protect income from events organised.
8- Performance Planning
I will support this motion, albeit I am less concerned on the Budget rather on what Performance actually provide. I fully expect the performance Director to publish quarterly plans for the performance squads, with regular updates on who is involved, what has been undertaken and what is achieved. I expect to see greater integration of the Performance Coaches and staff with Club coaching and in pro-active Talent ID and recognition. My personal view is that Scottish slalom is currently in great shape with increased participation, high levels of achievement and wider integration between clubs and volunteers. SCA Performance is proving to be a distraction and damaging the underlying efforts. However we do not need to support Performance, recent trips to France and Solkan have demonstrated that Scottish slalom can still achieve substantial success working on a voluntary basis.
Much has been stated that the resolutions place the SCA at financial risk, yet our current greatest risk remains the staff and performance programme. Both are contracted commitments for the SCA but rely on the funding stream from Sportscotland. A substantial and significant stream that relies on the success of the Performance Programme. Current reserves would allow continued operation for approximately 3 months before the SCA would be literally bankrupt. The Limited Guarantee and the lack of significant Assets (Grandtully Station yard) would limit any Credit rating. For those that believe Sportscotland would not allow this to happen I suggest you contact former members of the Scottish Ski NGB.
Whilst the Performance programme highlights their success it is also worth noting, the high turnover in staff 7 coaches have resigned in the past 2 years, 4 in the past year. Following the resignations in October 2013 it was June 2014 until a replacement was recruited. Many of the young paddlers were left complaining of a lack of coaching support. Our top athletes are refusing to engage, of 11 athletes that made GB junior or U23 teams in 2014 only 4 are involved in the 2014-15 performance squads. 11 athletes achieved the criteria set for the Vision Programme, only 2 of those are participating, similarly 13 athletes achieved the published Horizon criteria, only 4 of those are participating at this level. Despite public statements from the Performance Director that athletes would be required to meet the published criteria to be a part of the programme, 50% of the current Vision and 40% of the current Horizon failed to meet those exacting standards. The current squads are running at 60% of planned capacity. The Slalom Technical Committee and the Competition Director have been instructed that performance is not within their remit, dialogue must be routed via Board or CEO. There are serious and significant concerns that the programme is not delivering and yet there is no engagement with the voluntary sector, those not participating are written off as a disaffected minority (70-80%) and we need to support the programme. The warning signs are there that we need to address before the risk to the Association becomes reality and before our sponsors rule that the programme is not functioning and remove funding and support.
The proposal is not to remove Management responsibility but to promote accountability and develop a holistic plan that truly caters from source to sea, participation to podium. With clear roles, responsibilities, positive interfaces and mutual support and understanding. Is such a thing really a risk to the SCA!
9- SIS Funding
I will support this motion, nomination should be on the basis of the best performing athletes. With current SCA Performance restricted in geographical delivery with Scotland it is hardly a National scheme. It is quite feasible that an athlete outwith the Central or Tayside belt would struggle to attend at performance hubs but could still train and develop. SCA Performance should look to work with such athletes and support not curtail or restrict funding and opportunity. With requirements for athletes to contribute circa £1300-2000 towards the Performance programme and still have to provide for their own equipment, transport, entries and local training etc. then it can be seen that Performance may not provide the added value return in some cases, particularly where several family members may be eligible. The Performance programme should seek to support and progress our most eligible athletes on the pathway to UK and World Class support.
10- Resolution of Issues
Whilst I have concerns on the wording of this motion as it refers to aggrieved issues – which should be tabled via the Grievance Process and hence would be entitled to personal representation. The spirit of the motion is in agreement with the published Seven Principals of Good Governance for the Sport and recreation Sector. That is in terms of stakeholder engagement, definition of high standards and provision of transparency in Board operations and decision processing. Hence I will support the motion, however I would suggest that an amendment is considered to clarify between disputed proposals or guidance and the operation of the Grievance Process.
11- Grievance Procedure
I will support this motion, albeit I think the motion requires further thought and amendment. The basis should be that the investigation panel is independent and free from interference or perceived pressure from Board, plaintiff or defendant. I do not believe that they need to be from Technical Committees. I have no comment on the background but perceive that it may be misconstrued as targeting an individual rather than promoting a fair and just amendment.
12- Whistle Blowing
I support the principal of this motion and such a policy should be incorporated into the Re-Structuring plans to meet with the Seven Principals document requirements.
13- Confidential Communications
As the motion limits to Board I will support, it could be expanded to refer to individual emails, however there is a requirement that we have access to Staff emails in case of departure/holidays etc. and with the nominated role emails that again there is a good case to have central access. I.e. even if we do not have an RCO in Fife the FifeRCO email may be used to send in requests and may be checked and re-routed by staff to ensure matters remain addressed.
14- Support Volunteers
Not a competent AGM Motion much as I have great empathy with it, it will achieve no more than polishing a turd. It seems odd that a Company that claims to be volunteer lead cannot endorse such a simple motion. It is noted that at several points comment attributes recognition of the voluntary sector along with staff and professional centres. Yet in the Board Minutes from April, despite the glowing testimonials in published Reports, the Board were required to pass a vote of confidence in the staff. Surely an equally frivolous gesture given the comments in the previous Annual report, issues of Paddler and the award of Professional Coach of the Year. The adoption of such a Resolution would have no impact on the Board or the Management of the Association but would publicly and formally recognise and endorse the various public statements. The stance taken by the board does more to undermine their position than underpin.
The below is my own personal view on the proposals, initially put forward as Agenda items under Article 8.1 – Any item of business which any Member entitled to vote wishes to have placed on the Agenda should be intimated in writing to the Association by 15th August prior to the Annual General Meeting in each year. This in order to promote discussion and engagement with the wider membership, with reports of intimidation to staff; volunteers, young paddlers and Board Representatives from various parties on both sides of the debate.
1- Article 7.2 (b)
I cannot support this Motion, the Board is responsible for running the Company and hence must be free to amend remits, guidelines etc. to suit without encumbrance for a GM to endorse. Albeit with transparency and open communication there should be more background explanation to requirement for change or implementation.
2- Amendments to SCA Documents
I cannot support this Motion, changes to the current Articles must be performed within the current Articles. Hence the detail must be published for AGM endorsement. Many of the Policy documents may be required to support or facilitate ongoing funding and business. Hence they should be able to be amended without extended delay to promote the potential opportunities provided to support the Association. Again if the SCA Board are to undertake the Seven Principals then such documents should be considered well in advance and subjected to open discussion, accountable justification and subsequent amendment.
3- Section 4.2 (d)
I will support this motion but again I think there should be flexibility to amend. It is not clear who the Honorary Members are, if we mean the Honorary President and Vice-Presidents then we should state as such. However I do agree that a reasonable reason is provided and that there should be a right for appeal/arbitration. It may be that this Motion be considered further with SportScotland on provision of a confidential whistle blowing policy and an independent body for such arbitration.
4- Article 11.2
I cannot support this Motion, similar to the above this is the Article that allows the Board to delegate disciplinary measures and ensure that no individual or group may subvert the general good. This is the section that would be required were the Board to decide that they will have a working week away in the Bahamas at SCA Expense and then seek to pass the Company into Administration.
5- Pinkston Funding
I cannot support this Motion, this effectively calls for either the SCA to deplete required reserves and increase the risk to the Association to default. As a Company limited by guarantee we have very limited Credit Rating (circa £3000), a cash reserve is not necessarily cash in the bank but may be fluid and used to ensure cash flow and payment of debtors and staff in due time. We have suffered previously with delays to Grant payment resulting in significant cash flow issues to the Association. To provide revenue payment to Pinkston may add circa £5/member to membership rates for a single site that may not be attractive nor provide a viable facility to a significant portion of the membership.
However I can understand the desire for greater SCA involvement and the strategic benefits to properly establishing a strong Club and presence in the Pinkston facility. Following the establishment of Breadalbane CC with support from SCA and SCA Performance Coaches etc., Pinkston offers an opportunity to take the model to the next level with a far greater catchment population and the nearby availability of tertiary and higher education. Such a development could see a strong base with facilities and peers to see competition paddlers remain within Scotland and promote a hub of excellence that could match and rival the current developments in Nottingham; Lee Valley and Cardiff. I remain concerned that despite the discussion at the 2013 AGM and the official opening of Pinkston in May, that the Board minutes from June demonstrate a lack of engagement between nominated SCA Representative and Scottish Canals. Albeit the clear and positive engagement of various technical committees, clubs and volunteers to progress access and utilisation of the site.
6- Grandtully Lease
Allocation of costs should be an easy matter for the Treasurer to define. I do not understand why this has not been re-allocated to the overall Grandtully Campsite budget. However I will not support the motion as if the costs are allocated to Slalom then there is an onus on slalom to recoup. Hence Slalom would be in a position to charge events for use of the bankside facilities e.g. 7 days slalom @ e.g. £50/day, add on similar charge to WWR and Marathon races. Establish an honesty system – similar to campsite for use of the gates, with potential for local and regular users to purchase season tickets and establish a charge to SCA Performance for training days and camps (e.g. £20 /day so circa £400-500/year on sample programme included in performance criteria document). This could generate a surplus that could be used for equipment maintenance and replacement or to offset costs to key performing athletes. I suspect (from past precedent) that if proposals were drafted and set forward for implementation SCA office and Grandtully campsite may rapidly change tack. So whilst I recognise the view I believe that further options may be discussed and progressed without AGM business.
It may also be remembered that the lease was established as a requirement to support the funding for the Campsite Development. It also provided the security of River access at Grandtully long before the Land Reform Act, indeed it was cited by many as an example of how the various parties could co-exist and hence justification for the underlying premise of the Land Reform Act on mutual responsible access. The transfer of the lease fee to Slalom was undertaken as a unilateral decision and has been the subject to frequent challenge and discussion. Indeed the initial transfer lead to various charges against Slalom Committee for failure to achieve agreed budget despite their lack of knowledge that additional costs had been added to their budget from central Treasury. However there are opportunities to recoup the costs from slalom paddlers at a reasonable rate.
7- Technical Committee Funding
I cannot support this Motion, as an SCA Member I am involved in a number of disciplines and technical committee business. I should not have to specify a particular benefactor. The policy is and has been for some time that Technical Committees develop their own funding to provide a break even. There are many options on how this is undertaken and slalom have been particularly good at undertaking this through levies on entry fees and in establishing communal corporations to protect income from events organised.
8- Performance Planning
I will support this motion, albeit I am less concerned on the Budget rather on what Performance actually provide. I fully expect the performance Director to publish quarterly plans for the performance squads, with regular updates on who is involved, what has been undertaken and what is achieved. I expect to see greater integration of the Performance Coaches and staff with Club coaching and in pro-active Talent ID and recognition. My personal view is that Scottish slalom is currently in great shape with increased participation, high levels of achievement and wider integration between clubs and volunteers. SCA Performance is proving to be a distraction and damaging the underlying efforts. However we do not need to support Performance, recent trips to France and Solkan have demonstrated that Scottish slalom can still achieve substantial success working on a voluntary basis.
Much has been stated that the resolutions place the SCA at financial risk, yet our current greatest risk remains the staff and performance programme. Both are contracted commitments for the SCA but rely on the funding stream from Sportscotland. A substantial and significant stream that relies on the success of the Performance Programme. Current reserves would allow continued operation for approximately 3 months before the SCA would be literally bankrupt. The Limited Guarantee and the lack of significant Assets (Grandtully Station yard) would limit any Credit rating. For those that believe Sportscotland would not allow this to happen I suggest you contact former members of the Scottish Ski NGB.
Whilst the Performance programme highlights their success it is also worth noting, the high turnover in staff 7 coaches have resigned in the past 2 years, 4 in the past year. Following the resignations in October 2013 it was June 2014 until a replacement was recruited. Many of the young paddlers were left complaining of a lack of coaching support. Our top athletes are refusing to engage, of 11 athletes that made GB junior or U23 teams in 2014 only 4 are involved in the 2014-15 performance squads. 11 athletes achieved the criteria set for the Vision Programme, only 2 of those are participating, similarly 13 athletes achieved the published Horizon criteria, only 4 of those are participating at this level. Despite public statements from the Performance Director that athletes would be required to meet the published criteria to be a part of the programme, 50% of the current Vision and 40% of the current Horizon failed to meet those exacting standards. The current squads are running at 60% of planned capacity. The Slalom Technical Committee and the Competition Director have been instructed that performance is not within their remit, dialogue must be routed via Board or CEO. There are serious and significant concerns that the programme is not delivering and yet there is no engagement with the voluntary sector, those not participating are written off as a disaffected minority (70-80%) and we need to support the programme. The warning signs are there that we need to address before the risk to the Association becomes reality and before our sponsors rule that the programme is not functioning and remove funding and support.
The proposal is not to remove Management responsibility but to promote accountability and develop a holistic plan that truly caters from source to sea, participation to podium. With clear roles, responsibilities, positive interfaces and mutual support and understanding. Is such a thing really a risk to the SCA!
9- SIS Funding
I will support this motion, nomination should be on the basis of the best performing athletes. With current SCA Performance restricted in geographical delivery with Scotland it is hardly a National scheme. It is quite feasible that an athlete outwith the Central or Tayside belt would struggle to attend at performance hubs but could still train and develop. SCA Performance should look to work with such athletes and support not curtail or restrict funding and opportunity. With requirements for athletes to contribute circa £1300-2000 towards the Performance programme and still have to provide for their own equipment, transport, entries and local training etc. then it can be seen that Performance may not provide the added value return in some cases, particularly where several family members may be eligible. The Performance programme should seek to support and progress our most eligible athletes on the pathway to UK and World Class support.
10- Resolution of Issues
Whilst I have concerns on the wording of this motion as it refers to aggrieved issues – which should be tabled via the Grievance Process and hence would be entitled to personal representation. The spirit of the motion is in agreement with the published Seven Principals of Good Governance for the Sport and recreation Sector. That is in terms of stakeholder engagement, definition of high standards and provision of transparency in Board operations and decision processing. Hence I will support the motion, however I would suggest that an amendment is considered to clarify between disputed proposals or guidance and the operation of the Grievance Process.
11- Grievance Procedure
I will support this motion, albeit I think the motion requires further thought and amendment. The basis should be that the investigation panel is independent and free from interference or perceived pressure from Board, plaintiff or defendant. I do not believe that they need to be from Technical Committees. I have no comment on the background but perceive that it may be misconstrued as targeting an individual rather than promoting a fair and just amendment.
12- Whistle Blowing
I support the principal of this motion and such a policy should be incorporated into the Re-Structuring plans to meet with the Seven Principals document requirements.
13- Confidential Communications
As the motion limits to Board I will support, it could be expanded to refer to individual emails, however there is a requirement that we have access to Staff emails in case of departure/holidays etc. and with the nominated role emails that again there is a good case to have central access. I.e. even if we do not have an RCO in Fife the FifeRCO email may be used to send in requests and may be checked and re-routed by staff to ensure matters remain addressed.
14- Support Volunteers
Not a competent AGM Motion much as I have great empathy with it, it will achieve no more than polishing a turd. It seems odd that a Company that claims to be volunteer lead cannot endorse such a simple motion. It is noted that at several points comment attributes recognition of the voluntary sector along with staff and professional centres. Yet in the Board Minutes from April, despite the glowing testimonials in published Reports, the Board were required to pass a vote of confidence in the staff. Surely an equally frivolous gesture given the comments in the previous Annual report, issues of Paddler and the award of Professional Coach of the Year. The adoption of such a Resolution would have no impact on the Board or the Management of the Association but would publicly and formally recognise and endorse the various public statements. The stance taken by the board does more to undermine their position than underpin.
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
I'll be voting as the board advises and against all the resolutions. At best they'll require an expensive rewriting of the Articles of Assication and at worst they'll stop any Sport Scotland funding.
More discussion on this Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/SCOTTISHCANOEI ... ESOLUTIONS
More discussion on this Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/SCOTTISHCANOEI ... ESOLUTIONS
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
Considering the Boards own proposal for re-structuring will require an expensive re-write of the Articles of Association, then at best the proposals will only provide the much sought after engagement and response from the Membership. Much of what is proposed is already in alignment with the SportScotland Guidance document, unlike the Board proposal to remove directly elected Board members and replace with a system whereby the Board vet nominees elect themselves or their choice.
The majority of SportScotland funding is based on the delivery of Performance, given the turnover and delays in recruiting staff and the fact that the athletes are turning their back on the Performance programme. If we remain with the current programme we are at significant risk that funding will be withdrawn.
Please review the Motions and consider your own view, I do not support all the proposals and do note expect other to do so. I do believe that if you do read the proposals and consider them there are sufficient that are worthy of real consideration and progress. Even many that I do not support are worthy of some debate as there are underlying principals that may provide guidance for future strategic development.
The majority of SportScotland funding is based on the delivery of Performance, given the turnover and delays in recruiting staff and the fact that the athletes are turning their back on the Performance programme. If we remain with the current programme we are at significant risk that funding will be withdrawn.
Please review the Motions and consider your own view, I do not support all the proposals and do note expect other to do so. I do believe that if you do read the proposals and consider them there are sufficient that are worthy of real consideration and progress. Even many that I do not support are worthy of some debate as there are underlying principals that may provide guidance for future strategic development.
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
These motions have been borne out of 2 years of discussions with the SCA Management where the views of a considerable number of the membership have been ignored. The issues raised during this period are all valid issues and should have been heard fairly. If they had been heard fairly and some sort of compromise reached, it would never have reached this stage. The employees of the SCA are exactly that, employees there to do what is the organisation wants them to do. As members, we are part of that organisation and are stakeholders in the running of that organisation. It should also be noted that Kelso Riddell (father of JR Riddell) in on the board and so I would expect him to support the boards view.
Many of those involved in preparing the motions have been involved in Scottish Canoeing for many many many years giving up many more hours as volunteers to organise events, run training camps, run club training sessions week in week out and most importantly take people canoeing. It is because of this commitment to canoeing that we have felt the need to raise these motions. This is not a group of people who are taking from canoeing but a group of people who have contributed to the sport.
What is very interesting is the board's response to the motions and the e-mail that they circulated out to the membership. The arguments are completely one sided and those submitting the motions do not have access to the membership details to explain further what the motions are for. 5 coaches have resigned from the SCA in 2 years. 3 board members have resigned in recent times too. Staff turnover is a very good measure of contentment within an organisation.
The National Governing Body are there to serve the interests of all involved in canoeing regardless of discipline. This also includes supporting the clubs and the technical committees. In my time on a technical committee, there has been little to no support provided . There has been no financial support provided to help the technical committee run it's part of the organisation.
One of the complaints levelled at Slalom is that we are an elite sport. Slalom has an elite element like all other sports but the majority of those competing are doing it for fun and because they like the competitive element. Those doing Slalom at Elite level are supported by GB Canoeing which is not funded by the SCA.
Slalom is Scotland is largely done by children aged 8-18 with a few involved aged 18-23 as it enables them to learn canoeing in a safe, secure environment. They start at Division 4 and work their way up to Premier. These children are also part of the SCA and should expect support by the NGB. The majority of children participating in slalom do it because they enjoy it and they enjoy the friendships and social side mixing with paddlers from all over the UK. All of those competing in Slalom, pay their membership fee like anyone else. We are asking that the role each technical committee plays in contributing to SCA membership is recognised by allowing each member to nominate that 15% of their membership fee goes to the technical committee of their choice.
We are also asking that the best paddlers in Scotland are put forward for Institute Support and Grants regardless of whether they have signed up to the Scottish Performance program which requires a £2000 membership fee. This does not require any changes to the SCA and does not cost the SCA anything. Why wouldn't they support the best athletes?
Many of those involved in preparing the motions have been involved in Scottish Canoeing for many many many years giving up many more hours as volunteers to organise events, run training camps, run club training sessions week in week out and most importantly take people canoeing. It is because of this commitment to canoeing that we have felt the need to raise these motions. This is not a group of people who are taking from canoeing but a group of people who have contributed to the sport.
What is very interesting is the board's response to the motions and the e-mail that they circulated out to the membership. The arguments are completely one sided and those submitting the motions do not have access to the membership details to explain further what the motions are for. 5 coaches have resigned from the SCA in 2 years. 3 board members have resigned in recent times too. Staff turnover is a very good measure of contentment within an organisation.
The National Governing Body are there to serve the interests of all involved in canoeing regardless of discipline. This also includes supporting the clubs and the technical committees. In my time on a technical committee, there has been little to no support provided . There has been no financial support provided to help the technical committee run it's part of the organisation.
One of the complaints levelled at Slalom is that we are an elite sport. Slalom has an elite element like all other sports but the majority of those competing are doing it for fun and because they like the competitive element. Those doing Slalom at Elite level are supported by GB Canoeing which is not funded by the SCA.
Slalom is Scotland is largely done by children aged 8-18 with a few involved aged 18-23 as it enables them to learn canoeing in a safe, secure environment. They start at Division 4 and work their way up to Premier. These children are also part of the SCA and should expect support by the NGB. The majority of children participating in slalom do it because they enjoy it and they enjoy the friendships and social side mixing with paddlers from all over the UK. All of those competing in Slalom, pay their membership fee like anyone else. We are asking that the role each technical committee plays in contributing to SCA membership is recognised by allowing each member to nominate that 15% of their membership fee goes to the technical committee of their choice.
We are also asking that the best paddlers in Scotland are put forward for Institute Support and Grants regardless of whether they have signed up to the Scottish Performance program which requires a £2000 membership fee. This does not require any changes to the SCA and does not cost the SCA anything. Why wouldn't they support the best athletes?
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
" We are asking that the role each technical committee plays in contributing to SCA membership is recognised by allowing each member to nominate that 15% of their membership fee goes to the technical committee of their choice. "
What would be reduced in the budget or increased in the income to allow this to happen?
Slalom reported a surplus of £2500 this year, what problem does this solve?
What would be reduced in the budget or increased in the income to allow this to happen?
Slalom reported a surplus of £2500 this year, what problem does this solve?
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
The Slalom surplus you mention of £2500 has now been fully spent this year on items that the Slalom committee have prioritised for the benefit of slalom. On the plus side, we are now able to carry forward any unused income to the next calendar year. In previous years, unused income was lost and transferred to the SCA reserve funds. We have invested in replacement gates, ropes and bearers for Grandtully and also the same for Pinkston. We would love to do more to help clubs interested in slalom but cannot.
Craig mentions that the £500 river bank lease could be charged to those using the site. this would mean that primarily we would be charging the Performance program who you could argue could afford this but we would also be charging the local club , all of whom are SCA members because they do slalom and they could quite rightly say that they pay their membership fee so why can the SCA not support them. The performance program already pay around £4000 to have boat storage for the local club, access to the toilets and and camping at the SCA Campsite.
The other option would be to make some charge to those running the events. Any other events at other sites have to pay their own costs so this could also be considered but given that this is only 6 days out of 365 this would seem unfair.
The riverbank lease should be considered alongside the campsite. Much of the campsite income is generated from slaloms and the riverbank lease allows those staying at the campsite to easily access the rapids. In many ways the £500 is a small sum of money but is an example of the SCA charging the slalom committee when it suits but not giving us any credits for the income we generate through membership of Grandtully campsite usage. This £500 charge was paid for by the SCA for many many years until it was transferred without agreement to the slalom committee budget a few years ago.
The SCA reserves are over £200,000. How has this money been accumulated
Craig mentions that the £500 river bank lease could be charged to those using the site. this would mean that primarily we would be charging the Performance program who you could argue could afford this but we would also be charging the local club , all of whom are SCA members because they do slalom and they could quite rightly say that they pay their membership fee so why can the SCA not support them. The performance program already pay around £4000 to have boat storage for the local club, access to the toilets and and camping at the SCA Campsite.
The other option would be to make some charge to those running the events. Any other events at other sites have to pay their own costs so this could also be considered but given that this is only 6 days out of 365 this would seem unfair.
The riverbank lease should be considered alongside the campsite. Much of the campsite income is generated from slaloms and the riverbank lease allows those staying at the campsite to easily access the rapids. In many ways the £500 is a small sum of money but is an example of the SCA charging the slalom committee when it suits but not giving us any credits for the income we generate through membership of Grandtully campsite usage. This £500 charge was paid for by the SCA for many many years until it was transferred without agreement to the slalom committee budget a few years ago.
The SCA reserves are over £200,000. How has this money been accumulated
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
"The Slalom surplus you mention of £2500 has now been fully spent this year"
Great that the slalom committee is being active and using last year's surplus, I hope the same can continue in future. I don't see a problem needing solved here.
"The SCA reserves are over £200,000. How has this money been accumulated"
By not spending without considering the need to grow reserves I assume. The reserves are under the Sport Scotland recommendations for an organisation with the number of employees, the idea that a company with empoloyees should not have reserves is very naive. It occurs to me that if the performance programme were to end by these motions going through and Sport Scotland no longer funding it the SCA would have fewer employees and this would allow some of the reserves to be spent.
I'm afraid it is irresponsible to propose an increase in outgoings without saying how that would be budgeted for.
Great that the slalom committee is being active and using last year's surplus, I hope the same can continue in future. I don't see a problem needing solved here.
"The SCA reserves are over £200,000. How has this money been accumulated"
By not spending without considering the need to grow reserves I assume. The reserves are under the Sport Scotland recommendations for an organisation with the number of employees, the idea that a company with empoloyees should not have reserves is very naive. It occurs to me that if the performance programme were to end by these motions going through and Sport Scotland no longer funding it the SCA would have fewer employees and this would allow some of the reserves to be spent.
I'm afraid it is irresponsible to propose an increase in outgoings without saying how that would be budgeted for.
-
Jerry Tracey
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:09 am
Re: SCA Democratic Influence
Thank-you for the full responses.
In my view three fundamental questions emerge from this detailed debate:
1) Should it be the role of the SCA board to formulate and implement policy?
2) Is it appropriate for the SCA to remain a company subject to the companies act, or should it revert to being a voluntary member's association?
3) Should funding from Sport Scotland be automatically accepted, even if the price is giving them effective control over our association?
The attitude of the board to questions such as these is a classic TINA (there is no alternative) response. As in wider politics, when those in power say this it normally means that there are alternatives that must not even be considered.
I feel that issues such as these should be subject to full and open debate.
In my view three fundamental questions emerge from this detailed debate:
1) Should it be the role of the SCA board to formulate and implement policy?
2) Is it appropriate for the SCA to remain a company subject to the companies act, or should it revert to being a voluntary member's association?
3) Should funding from Sport Scotland be automatically accepted, even if the price is giving them effective control over our association?
The attitude of the board to questions such as these is a classic TINA (there is no alternative) response. As in wider politics, when those in power say this it normally means that there are alternatives that must not even be considered.
I feel that issues such as these should be subject to full and open debate.