Open Letter to the SCA President and Board of Directors

[fatsplat]

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SCA

Dear Brian
I feel compelled to write a personal response as an ordinary member of the SCA with regard to your recent cover note to the coaching committee regarding its restructure. I am incensed with the nefarious intent that is apparent throughout this letter.
I attach a copy of your letter to coaching, which shows a lack of vision, no clear objectives and has already rejected the voluntary support given by the members.
As members will be aware, the coaching and awards system within the SCA has been undergoing considerable change within the past few years, these changes have thrown up a number of challenges for all members of the association. A year ago, the coaching committee was asked to review arrangements in order that members could be better supported. The coaching committee brought forward proposals which were submitted to the board on 14th February 2012. There are a number of aspects of the boards response to these documents which, I feel, are of sufficient concern to bring to the attention of SCA members.
As a previous LCO, RCO and a member of the coaching conference organising team, I feel that I am well placed to comment on your letter. There is no feedback within your letter, only dictatorial dialogue which I am insulted by and feel is a gross disservice and highly disparaging to the coaching committee as a whole.
You asked for expert opinion and yet you now disregard this completely. This appears to be a repetition of the type of response from the board to previous issues regarding communications, consultation and transparency.
The board have a stated aim of strategic development for the association, yet where is the strategy in effectively sacking the experts within coaching who have driven so much of the process?
This taken from the Articles of Association “the Board of Directors will be responsible for (a) deciding on matters of strategy and policy (taking into account input from the standing sub-committees…”
In your letter you state "We feel that the BCU is the best place for these conversations and that it would serve no useful purpose to replicate the BCU structure within the SCA. With this in mind we do not feel that it is necessary to create an SCA specific Technical Group as has been proposed. Should the coaching committee need additional support or answers to specific questions we feel that there are already sufficient avenues available to meet this need.” also that “We feel that these changes can be easily implemented and will make a considerable difference to our operation and be of benefit to our members. We therefore propose that the new committee start operating from the beginning of April.”
How do you know what the members want or need, when there is no communication with these members?
Once again the board have asked for advice from the membership via elected sub committees and then summarily disregarded this advice. This is precisely the behaviour the board undertook not to be involved in after the meeting at Bridge of Allan. You will recall that this came about when the board tried to dictate a course to the Touring Committee that was neither asked for, or favoured by the touring fraternity, committee or the membership. It was a gross error of judgement on the part of the Board of Directors.
This is not a personal attack on you or other members of the board, but I feel there are personal agendas driving some of the issues. I would welcome your response to the wider membership at your earliest convenience.
In conclusion, I personally would like the Board and you as president to consider your positions, as I have no confidence in your ability to lead the association effectively.
Yours
Paul Mills
SCA Member 2499


SCA Coaching Committee Restructure Cover Note

Firstly, please accept our thanks, as a board, for the work that has gone in to this restructuring process. We reviewed the documents at our meeting last week and would like to take this opportunity to provide our feedback, as requested.
We feel that the documents put to us do not address the need for change that was first identified and asked for about a year ago.
The operational needs of the Association and our members requires the prompt establishment of a committee, comprising RCO's, that is able to focus on meeting and servicing this need. This committee will work closely with our members, the board and the SCA staff to ensure that we keep our members needs, our strategic vision and the service we provide aligned. As a result we propose the creation of a new coaching committee, in line with the ToR attached.
We feel that the new committee should be allowed to decide on any changes in the regions and suggest that this change be delayed until such time as the new committee feel it is necessary.
We feel that the Approved Paddle Sport Provider role is not adding value in its current guise and that these responsibilities would be better shared between the RCO's and the paid staff.
The relationship with the National Centre is currently being redefined and we propose that we await the outcome of any developments here before making a decision about including its representative as a permanent committee member.
Development of our awards is the responsibility of the BCU and is well supported by a structure of volunteers and paid staff. Many within the current SCA committee already contribute to this development at BCU level, some in many ways. We are delighted that so many of our members have developed to positions where they can add so much value to UK wide development and would encourage them to continue to do so. We feel that the BCU is the best place for these conversations and that it would serve no useful purpose to replicate the BCU structure within the SCA. With this in mind we do not feel that it is necessary to create an SCA specific Technical Group as has been proposed. Should the coaching committee need additional support or answers to specific questions we feel that there are already sufficient avenues available to meet this need.
We feel that these changes can be easily implemented and will make a considerable difference to our operation and be of benefit to our members. We therefore propose that the new committee start operating from the beginning of April.
We appreciate that this will not meet with the approval of all the current committee members and are prepared to meet to discuss this restructure should it be required. Such a meeting would need to happen mid March, should it be necessary, so that we can still go live in April.
We feel that this is in the best interest of our membership and look forward to seeing the value a more streamlined and focused committee will provide.
Please accept our thanks for the work you have all put in to the committee over many years. While this does bring sadness at the end of an era it also brings the promise of an exciting future. We hope that those of you who will not be on the new coaching committee will continue to provide volunteer support to the SCA and BCU through other channels as you have done for countless years already.

[Brian Chapman]

Dear Paul,

I am disappointed to see an open letter posted on a forum before I have received anything directly from you, but I am sure that this is just down to delays in the original finding its way to me.

I am doubly disappointed by the content of your e-mail which is sadly based upon very selective and in no small way inaccurate information. As there is not sufficient space here to provide the full story, and an even lower likelihood that those who enjoy making mischief at others expense will take time to read and understand it, I will content myself with making it clear that this is the case, it is something which we will be discussing directly with the members of the current SCA coaching committee early next month and the final agreed plans for the evolution of the coaching committee will be communicated directly to all SCA members shortly thereafter.

In the meantime, I can only hope that the readers of this forum will resist the temptation to embark on speculation which is unlikely to help us to find a workable solution.

Brian

[MikeB]

Brian. I await considerable interest to hear exactly which RCO will be able to provide the same level of technical excellence in support of SCA touring that messrs brown and rosseter are currently providing.

That you as a board didn't see fit to consult with SCA touring is regrettable.

That you seek to subdue response in your post above is equally regrettable. At the bridge of Allen meeting, after the fiasco with the original touring committee, you promised greater consultation and transparency.

Please demonstrate that.

Thanks, Mike

[Mark R]

Ah yes, invoking the 'Jim Breen' clause - that's the one that says that anyone at all is entitled to pop up on UKRGB and use its open and free nature to post multiple negative whines about whatever is bothering them, despite not having made any particular other contribution on this paddling site beforehand. I imagine that once you've had your whine, you'll disappear off afterwards like Breen did.

Whine away, it's your entitlement.

[Brian Chapman]

Brian. I await considerable interest to hear exactly which RCO will be able to provide the same level of technical excellence in support of SCA touring that messrs brown and rosseter are currently providing.

That you as a board didn't see fit to consult with SCA touring is regrettable.

That you seek to subdue response in your post above is equally regrettable. At the bridge of Allen meeting, after the fiasco with the original touring committee, you promised greater consultation and transparency.

Please demonstrate that.

Thanks, Mike

Mike,

I have this evening had a long conversation with Gordon Brown. As part of that discussion he has confirmed that his involvement with the touring trip leader discussions was him acting in his capacity as a very experienced paddler, that it was not as a consequence of his membership of the coaching committee and that he will continue to be available to touring committee in this role regardless of what the outcome of the ongoing discussions on the future of the coaching committee may be.

I hope that this helps to put your mind at rest.

Regards

Brian

[Jim]

Did I misread all this (it is even harder going than some of my own essays so it is possible)?

As far as I can see the only thing the board has rejected is a technical committee on coaching scheme development which on the face it does seem pretty irrelevant - what you need is to have representatives on the BCU committee that does that - isn't it? Otherwise the committee is either pointless and powerless, or it's mission is to split off a separate Scottish coaching scheme which I don't really think we have the resources for do we?

All the rest of it is actually meaningless to anyone who hasn't been involved with the entire discussion up until now, which is presumably a very few people.....

There may be a real problem that you are trying to make me aware of but your method of enlightening me about it falls way short of the mark, you have just come across as another ranting lunatic on a forum.

[Mark Gawler]

There may be a real problem that you are trying to make me aware of but your method of enlightening me about it falls way short of the mark, you have just come across as another ranting lunatic on a forum.

Thank's Jim, I thought it was my geographical location that made me think that.

[Kayak Bute]

Ah yes, invoking the 'Jim Breen' clause - that's the one that says that anyone at all is entitled to pop up on UKRGB and use its open and free nature to post multiple negative whines about whatever is bothering them, despite not having made any particular other contribution on this paddling site beforehand. I imagine that once you've had your whine, you'll disappear off afterwards like Breen did.

Whine away, it's your entitlement.

Hi Mark
I have not been a member of this forum for very long but have quickly come to value its contribution to paddle sport. For the record I have posted on several occasions:
search.php?search_id=egosearch
prior to contributing to day re my thoughts on the lack of leadership by the SCA board in relation to touring.
Roddy McDowell

[Mark R]

For the record I have posted on several occasions:

I was referring to the original poster, who appears to be newly arrived - or is that you too? Apologies if so.

[Kayak Bute]

For the record I have posted on several occasions:

I was referring to the original poster, who appears to be newly arrived - or is that you too? Apologies if so.

Hi again Mark
No the original poster is not my good self.
All best and thanks for clarification.
Roddy

[Skyak]

As frequent users of this forum will know, I rarely post. I do not even look here very often, but tonight I was guided to look by Brian Chapman.

I had a discussion with Brian for over an hour, where we chatted about various things. One small part of which was touring.

The main part of the discussion was around the communication from the SCA Board to Coaching regarding the restructuring of coaching committee which coaching had been leading. For the record; a working group within coaching had submitted documents to the Board for "comment only" and the SCA Coaching Restructure Cover Note, posted by Paul Mills was the response received by email to coaching committee.

As Brian has said, there is not sufficient space here to provide the full story. For me, the important question which Paul asks is "how do you know what the members want or need, when there is no communication with these members?" which I presume, is in response to the cover note stating "this is in the best interest of our membership". Without knowing the full story (from both sides) it is impossible to speculate whether the information is accurate, or not, however I do not disagree with Paul in his open letter.

I know Paul, he is not a "ranting lunatic" and could not be described as someone who "whines".

As chair of SCA coaching, I would welcome comments (which will allow me to feedback to coaching committee) from SCA members who feel this might affect them.

Gordon

[Adrian Cooper]

From the original post, I couldn't even work out who was to have said what, maybe I'm a bit dim. I probably have a small reputation for whining but I hope it is clear what issues I have when I do. (I do also try to offer something constructive to the forum as well; isn't life supposed to be about give and take?)

[twopigs]

From the original post, I couldn't even work out who was to have said what, maybe I'm a bit dim.

That's two of us a bit dim then :-D

[Big Henry]

From the original post, I couldn't even work out who was to have said what, maybe I'm a bit dim.

You must be, Adrian - you keep agreeing with me, and I with you! ;-> (for those who don't get smileys, it's the same as this:

[jriddell]

The SCA board have my full support in wanting to remove the duplication of syllabus development from the SCA committee and keep it in the BCU committee where it belongs. When I have tried to use the SCA committee for (grumpy) comments about the syllabus I have received no response. The BCU responded quite quickly and satisfactory. Having the SCA committee made up of RCOs so there is a direct line of communication from the SCA to club and individual coaches is an excellent change.

The SCA board were also entirely right in requiring the touring committee to have adequite qualifications for SCA run tours. It would be very hypocritical for the SCA have a 4 star leadership award but not require it on their own trips. It is a shame the touring committee did not see it that way and resigned but there is now a new committee for touring.

[Scots_Charles_River]

As chair of SCA coaching, I would welcome comments (which will allow me to feedback to coaching committee) from SCA members who feel this might affect them.

Gordon

As an SCA member 8924, aspirant UKCC Level 2 and aspirant Open 4 Star leader (phew), I would just say that having a duplicate syllabus is maybe too complicated and as long as SCA has assertive reps at BCU level - which I think is the case now - then no problem.

It may be an idea to have SCA Coaching committee reps from -education (schools and colleges) and the council/charity sector as well as the third sector. Maybe there is a bias of commercial coaches ? I don't know. I just see that clubs, schools and FE sports/adventure coaching students are the future of paddling and paddle coaching. Maybe there is the representation, I don't know.

I think we are lucky in the SCA having so many highly qualified and proffessional coaches helping the SCA out.

[MikeB]

The SCA board were also entirely right in requiring the touring committee to have adequite qualifications for SCA run tours. It would be very hypocritical for the SCA have a 4 star leadership award but not require it on their own trips. It is a shame the touring committee did not see it that way and resigned but there is now a new committee for touring.

May I respectfully suggest you get your facts right. The SCA Board never required the Touring Comm to require trip organisers to hold qualifications. And still doesn't. That the previous TC resigned was regretable, but had nothing to do with your suggestion - rather more of a general frustration with the manner in which the SCA Board interacts with the Membership, and indeed still does.

Mike.
(SCA Touring Committee - Calendar Coordinator - a role I fulfilled in the "previous" TC, and do (again) in the current one)

[Paul Cr]

To jriddle

As Mike says, with the agreement of the Board, Organisers on the the Touring Calendar are still either qualified or suitably experienced. Similar indeed to the requirement for SCA affiliated clubs. The 8 page Touring Process document explains this. It includes many checks and balances such as “external verification”, “criteria for touring organisers”, “responsibilities of organisers” and “responsibilities participants”.

As you were not involved in the discussions I am curious to know who gave you the incorrect information?

To all for general information. Final paragraphs of the Touring Committee's resignation letter issued to the Board and Trip Organisers

....”This communication from the Board comes at the end of three years during which the Board’s decision making process has seemed opaque and their communication to us on this issue has been desperately poor; the little communication that we have received has often been characterised by inaccuracies and apparent tunnel vision. This has led to a huge amount of wasted energy and effort on the part of ourselves and others, and has resulted in the loss of our confidence in and trust of the Board. Participants, organisers and all the committee volunteers over the past 30 years of successful Calendar operation deserve far better than this.

This loss of trust and the Board’s view of the current Calendar combine to leave us with no alternative; all members of the Touring Committee are today resigning. The SCA Touring Calendar has played a part in the paddling development of many, many paddlers across Scotland and beyond, offering a welcoming and enriching experience of our sport, our sea and our country. While we will no longer be involved, we trust that a way will be found for the unique spirit of SCA Touring to continue and wish our successors the best of luck in this endeavour.”

Subsequent to our resignation the Board issued 2 statements on the SCA website. The first was littered with inaccuracies and false accusations. The second was misleading rubbish that appeared to be deliberately drawn up to discredit the TC. In addition in the run up to the special June meeting a Board member contacted some of the Touring organisers and spread defamatory lies about my personal conduct and character for which I still await an apology. In short the conduct of the Board was appalling.

It is regrettable that a public UK forum is being used to air these concerns. However the Board have suppressed speech elsewhere such that UKRGB is one of the few (only?) communication channels left. No SCA website forum,No AOB at last SCA AGM. No critical comment allowed in Paddler. I did enquire if there was a process such that the conduct of the Board could be investigated, and was advised that AOB at an AGM was the only route. The Board are elected, but that does not entitle them to act in an unreasonable manner towards reasonable volunteers and members.

Writing the open letter would have been a very difficult thing to do. I applaud Paul’s decision to air his concerns in a considered manner and Gordon's subsequent post. I sincerely hope that careful consideration is given to the contents.

Happy Paddling

Paul Cromey
Ex Touring Chair

[morsey]

BCU = CE

BCU Chair = SCA President


Brian BCU refuses to answer questions on access, why is that?

[morsey]

Brian can you provide an to the question answer please?

[jamie stoddart]

Morsey,

Have you had a reply from Brian Chapman at all?

Over 48 hours and nothing in reply is unprofessional.

[jriddell]

Have you had a reply from Brian Chapman at all?
Over 48 hours and nothing in reply is unprofessional.

He's a volunteer, not a professional.

[jriddell]

As you were not involved in the discussions I am curious to know who gave you the incorrect information?

Various informal chats with SCA staff and board members, if there is more information about the dispute I'd love to read it.

It is regrettable that a public UK forum is being used to air these concerns. However the Board have suppressed speech elsewhere such that UKRGB is one of the few (only?) communication channels left. No SCA website forum,No AOB at last SCA AGM.

Yes I think it's a shame there aren't such discussion forums and that the SCA doesn't support them. It's not hard to set up a forum/mailing list/facebook group or whatever, I included it in my tender for the SCA website many years ago but alas didn't win that. It is hard to maintain them as sensible communication methods and the SCA have failed to do that when setting up forums before, I'm impressed by Mark R doing so better than anyone else. Have you considered offering support to the board to do that, or just standing for the board, or just settings up such communication methods independently?

I've just received some spam from someone moaning about the SCA's new policy on members data collection which ironically was sent using data that must have been scavanged against good data protectionpractice from various websites or lists so there is a need for such facilities.

[morsey]

Jriddell is correct, Brian will need at least a week to copy and paste the BCU/CE "Access is complicated" standard response. :-)

[sleepybubble]

BCU = CE

BCU Chair = SCA President


Brian BCU refuses to answer questions on access, why is that?

Hush, not now....

[sleepybubble]

Have you had a reply from Brian Chapman at all?
Over 48 hours and nothing in reply is unprofessional.

He's a volunteer, not a professional.

By dint of being a volunteer he should not be excluded from behaving in a professional manner.

[MikeB]

Have you had a reply from Brian Chapman at all?
Over 48 hours and nothing in reply is unprofessional.

He's a volunteer, not a professional.

Really?

As you were not involved in the discussions I am curious to know who gave you the incorrect information?

Various informal chats with SCA staff and board members, if there is more information about the dispute I'd love to read it.

Hmm - it sounds as though you've either been misinformed or misinterpreting possible scenarios. The "dispute" as you refer to it (assuming you're talking about the reasons the previous TC resigned) is well documented and there's no reason to rehash it all here. I guess (given your interest) that you were at the Bridge of Allen meeting where it was all laid bare, albeit perhaps not with the response from the board that was hoped for from some folk who really had been rather badly treated.

All the mins and other relevant docs relating to TC are on the SCA website. As is Andy Warrander's paper which formed the basis of the new Touring process. There's no requirement to hold qualifactions.

Mike.

[Robert Craig]

I've just received some spam from someone moaning about the SCA's new policy on members data collection which ironically was sent using data that must have been scavanged against good data protectionpractice from various websites or lists so there is a need for such facilities.

Seems to me that most reputable clubs would have a public address for correspondence - would be odd not to have one.

I've read the letter - it's a request for comment, not spam.

[morsey]

Have you had a reply from Brian Chapman at all?
Over 48 hours and nothing in reply is unprofessional.

He's a volunteer, not a professional.

By dint of being a volunteer he should not be excluded from behaving in a professional manner.

And, once again, a considerable time period passes.

[Brian Chapman]

Have you had a reply from Brian Chapman at all?
Over 48 hours and nothing in reply is unprofessional.

He's a volunteer, not a professional.

By dint of being a volunteer he should not be excluded from behaving in a professional manner.

Sorry, I had to delete the quote about a considerable time has passed as only 3 levels of quotes are allowed in my post.

I am not sure what question it is that you think I have not answered, but to be clear if it is in a posting on this site then a rapid response cannot be expected. This is not an official communication channel for the SCA and I do not frequently check in to find out what people may want me to comment on. It is possible for weeks, or months, to pass between visits.

If you have a question for me then the "professional approach" would be to ask it of me directly. My personal e-mail address is listed on the SCA web-site and depending on where I am in the world for my day job e-mails to that address are normally responded to within a day or so.

Brian