Open Letter to the SCA President and Board of Directors

[morsey]

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

[jamie stoddart]

Brian,

My post was purely based on the fact that you had rightly replied to the open letter within an hour of it being posted. Yet with the rather well documented access and BCU communication "issues" on this site, a quick and simple reply here or pm to Morsey from you saying "I will get back to you asap" or offering to discuss access policy with him would have been a good bit of PR on behalf of the BCU.

Morsey and I'd estimate over 90% of the other users of this site would welcome clarity on the BCUs access policy as there has been no coherent policy for many years. Also, far better communication from the BCU as there is a perception that the BCU serves the competitive elements and the recreational users are there to pay for this with no real support or benefit of membership in return.

[Brian Chapman]

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

Morsey,

The simple answer to your question (although I know you won't like it) is that it is not part of my role as BCU Chair to deal with access in England.

Now, to explain that against the howls of derision that I can already hear building.

The BCU acts to coordinate a very wide range of activities across the entire United Kingdom, and much of that goes without comment because it works well and so there is no sport in talking about it on forums like this.

Regarding access, there is an agreed BCU board position, which was developed over a year ago and has been published which is that the BCU aspires to a position where there is a clearly stated right of access for canoeists throughout the United Kingdom to any waterway which can be navigated responsibly, taking into account environmental considerations. However as the legal frameworks applicable in the 4 home nations are different then responsibility for securing that access in the best possible way rests with the national associations individually.

In Scotland there has been a presumed right of access to all waterways for a very long time. There were some legal challenges by a small number of landowners, which were ultimately inconclusive or unsuccessful and a small number of landowners who made life so difficult that we went elsewhere. So we enjoyed a reasonably free range of access. When the Scottish Parliament was established and they stated their intention to bring in the Land Reform Act then the SCA worked very hard, through employed and volunteer resources, to work with the legislators in a very small time window to get water included in the act and then to ensure that it remained there through the full legal process. Those efforts were ultimately successful, but it was by no means certain that they would be right up to the final vote. What is important is that it was the SCA working within Scotland to deal with the Scottish Parliament on a piece of legislation that was affecting Scotland. We had no expectation that Wales, Northern Ireland or England would do any of this on our behalf. Although we appreciated their support it was a job that had to be done locally.

We have recently seen Canoe Wales seeking to establish a similar right enshrined in legislation through the Welsh Assembly and Government. Although as yet they have not been successful I do hope that they will be able to achieve this when the opportunity presents itself, but it is something that can only be monitored and driven from Wales where the legislative power rests. The impact of any such success would also most likely be limited to water in Wales. The BCU board supports Canoe Wales' aspirations but is not directly involved in this work.

The situation in England is that this responsibility rests with the English Council and with Canoe England staff. Although the legal structure is more complex as Canoe England is an operating division of the BCU rather than being a separate legal entity, the reality of the split of responsibilities is the same. BCU Board members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot be expected to know the details of the legal situation in England (although you would be surprised how much they do know) or to interact on a day to day basis with the powers who ultimately need to be pursuaded to create an act which confirms unambiguously the legal right to take responsible access as now exists in Scotland. Canoe England needs to do this on behalf of English members, and from my perspective they are working very hard at it.

I know that there is some frustration amongst a small proportion of Canoe England members over the speed of progress on this issue, and I also know that this frustration is shared by those within Canoe England who are working to achieve progress. However, the lesson learned in Scotland is that whilst the delivery of the legislation was achieved over a period of about 2 years, the initiation of the legislation took nearly 300 years. I hope that this initiation will be quicker in England, but with the current priorities in Westminster it would be difficult to argue that a legally enshrined right of access for canoeists is more important than much of the other business being progressed there. In the meantime, the vast majority of Canoe England members do manage to go canoeing where / when they want to through licensing or accepted access on a wide variety of waterways. I know this doesn't help those who want to go on the more contentious waters, but there does seem to be a large number of paddlers who manage to do that as well with little fuss.

To pre-empt any further discussion, I will not enter into any dialogue about operational matters in England for which Canoe England staff and volunteer officers are responsible. This simply falls outwith my remitt.

Does that help you to understand my position?

[Mark R]

Brian, your comments come from nothing short of an alternative reality. What planet are you communicating to us from?

I know that there is some frustration amongst a small proportion of Canoe England members over the speed of progress on this issue

A small proportion? Are you serious?

And...were you bothered to read the various comments and queries repeatedly being directed at Canoe England, you would see that almost no one is complaining about the speed (note for instance, the fact that almost no one has criticised Canoe Wales for the recent slowing of their progress), but instead about the utter lack of effective policy or direction, the ridiculous attempts to crawl back behind Access 'Agreements' that your own organisation concede as a failed policy, and the borderline contemptuous attitude to communicating over the Access issue - the issue which is undoubtedly the issue of most concern to English paddlers...and indeed Canoe England members, few of whom would still be paying their subscription were they not involved in coaching and competition.

the vast majority of Canoe England members do manage to go canoeing where / when they want to through licensing or accepted access on a wide variety of waterways.

If that is indeed true, they do it despite their governing body, not because of, or even with the blessing/ encouragement of, their governing body.

To pre-empt any further discussion, I will not enter into any dialogue about operational matters in England for which Canoe England staff and volunteer officers are responsible.

Says it all, really.

I had an open mind here, I'll confess Brian that I hadn't even heard of you before this thread. But I have now heard enough to form a firm opinion about you, your knowledge of the sport, and your credibility to be chairing a National Governing Body.

[Simon Westgarth]

We are the un-silent majority on CE's arcane access policy and above all total failure of effective communications to it's membership. To concerned about its public appearance it appears.

[Mike A]

Brian, firstly thank you for responding.

Regarding access, there is an agreed BCU board position, which was developed over a year ago and has been published which is that the BCU aspires to a position where there is a clearly stated right of access for canoeists throughout the United Kingdom to any waterway which can be navigated responsibly, taking into account environmental considerations.

I truly believe that that statement is a position we all strive to achieve, but could I ask that the BCU / CE try and engage with members in the stratergy of how to get there - or at the very least communicate the pathways that BCU / CE wish to follow to achieve this aim. Then, members may wish to climb on board the campaign (we do have some ideas) as many did in the early stages of the RAC, or they may wish to seek to influence the boards view / stratergy. At the moment it is quite hard to feel engaged in the campaign as the pathway is not communicated to members.

The situation in England is that this responsibility rests with the English Council and with Canoe England staff. ... Canoe England needs to do this on behalf of English members, and from my perspective they are working very hard at it.

As a members organisation, surely the responsibility of BCU / CE / English council, is to represent the views of the members first with regards to access policy. However it often appears that;

1) The decision making is hidden from the membership,

2) There appears little desire from the NGB to involve members in decision making (ie NGB could invite views, hold regional meetings to gauge opinions on stratergy and to arrange co-ordinated campaigns)

3) There is little transparancy or communication of what the decisions actually are - the promised minutes of the English Council do not appear to have ever been posted on the website / published,

and

4) I am not sure what the views of the Access Policy Group are in how they think we should gain improved access as there is little / no communication of outputs to members


As Chairman of the overarching BCU, could I request that you arrange for the responsible person to publish the English Council minutes (following the first EC meeting it was stated that the minutes would be published).

Further, part of the reason for the negative opinions of BCU / CE is that there is so little communication. Whilst I accept that outcomes may take time, with such poor communication, there is no evidence that CE is actually doing anything to raise the issue with relevant bodies or improve the situation. Perhaps if the minutes of the Access Policy Group were also published, members could see that CE were actually doing something.

Finally on the communications front, BCU / CE has a stated aim. A published strategy of how to reach that aim and what members (and non-members) can do to further the cause would be appreciated. As a member, I have not got a clue how you wish me to engage with the most important issue facing recreational paddling.


Thanks again for responding

Mike

[Mike A]

In the meantime, the vast majority of Canoe England members do manage to go canoeing where / when they want to through licensing or accepted access on a wide variety of waterways. I know this doesn't help those who want to go on the more contentious waters, but there does seem to be a large number of paddlers who manage to do that as well with little fuss.

Paddling on contentious waters? As Mark says, this is despite NGB rather than beacause of it.

As for little fuss, if you count:

1) ensuring that you arrive ready kitted up on some rivers so you can get away without grief

2) making sure you dont leave vulnerable people alone at put ins whilst you do the shuttle in case they get grief that you know will upset them

3) removing all evidence of paddling from your vehicle just so you dont get tyres slashed

4) Changing plans to do differing rivers on days that you really are in no mood to have agro

So, if you count the above as little fuss in something that you do for pleasure, then you have differeing ideas as to what counts as little fuss than I do.

I have been a member for over 25 years now, firstly because I thought it right to join the members organisation that represents my interests, and laterly as a coach. But with the perception I have of what the BCU / CE does to improve my recreational enjoyment of the sport, if I didn't have to be a member for my coaching quals, than I would leave.

The sad part is that I introduce hundreds of people to paddle sport each year, but because I do not believe that BCU / CE is doing anything to improve recreational paddlesport (ie access to resources) then I do not recomend joining to anyone. I am not alone in that view.

If BCU / CE were to take a clear, fighting stance that was seen by recreational paddlers to be fighting their corner for access on rivers, lakes and coasts, then we would have far more members and a far stronger voice. CE might even get more money from Sport England!

Mike

[Michelle]

Mike A wrote

"As a members organisation, surely the responsibility of BCU / CE / English council, is to represent the views of the members first with regards to access policy. However it often appears that;

1) The decision making is hidden from the membership,

2) There appears little desire from the NGB to involve members in decision making (ie NGB could invite views, hold regional meetings to gauge opinions on stratergy and to arrange co-ordinated campaigns)

3) There is little transparancy or communication of what the decisions actually are - the promised minutes of the English Council do not appear to have ever been posted on the website / published"


The open letter seems to suggest the same problems in Scotland

[morsey]

Reply noted, thanks.

The simple answer to your question (although I know you won't like it) is that it is not part of my role as BCU Chair to deal with access in England.?

That part of the answer is fair enough, and I'd like to draw similarities with recent requests for information from the EA, the new canal and river trust and to a National Park. In each case the initial answer stated that they were not the correct point of contact for the question and did not know or were unable to give the answer. That is where the similarities end, because rather than provide a general overview to a question that obviously demonstrates an understanding of the situation, they simply pointed out that the questions would be forwarded to the correct person/department for response. Consequently, as BCU Chair, I trust that you will match that level of professionalism and I can expect you to urgently direct appropriate BCU/CE staff to give the full and expansive answers to issues of access and to engage in continued communications on the issue? You may not feel UKRGB is the correct location to do that, but BCU CE have a facebook page that would offer immediate facility for such communication, leaving BCU/CE no reason to not have a focused demonstration of willingness to engage with all paddlers.

Thanks Simon :-)

[Adrian Cooper]

Regarding access, there is an agreed BCU board position, which was developed over a year ago and has been published which is that the BCU aspires to a position where there is a clearly stated right of access for canoeists throughout the United Kingdom to any waterway which can be navigated responsibly, taking into account environmental considerations.

We can all have aspirations but that is hardly the basis for a 'position' statement.

I see the 'Waterways Charter' is no longer on the CE website.

[Chas C]

I know that there is some frustration amongst a small proportion of Canoe England members over the speed of progress on this issue

A small proportion? Are you serious?, how can you be so misinformed.

[Adrian Cooper]

I think he is referring to the 35,000 membership of UKRGB rather than the 31,000 membership of the BCU (including Scotland)

[morsey]

Adrian, in my head, as you finished typing that comment, you lifted your right hand, palm down in front of your chest, turned your head ten degrees to the right and, said "Boom!" :-)

[robp]

I know that there is some frustration amongst a small proportion of Canoe England members

Every time we hear from a member of the BCU hierarchy we are told that there are a small number of members who are deeply concerned about the BCU access stance.

I have never been able to square this with the fact that this is the number one topic of frustration among people that I actually meet paddling.

To try and understand this I put together a short survey that is running at the moment. See http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=88734 for the details.

The thing is, of the 570 responses received so far, the "small minority" referred to in Brian's post would seem to be about 94%!

If you do have an opinion on this, even (or perhaps especially) if you agree with Brian's view, please do fill out the survey as it will be really valuable to tell the BCU what paddlers really think.

[Jon Wood]

I see the 'Waterways Charter' is no longer on the CE website.

http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/p ... harter.pdf

Of course, since this was published, Richard Atkinson's departement has gone back to the promotion of VAAs, a policy

that has proved not to work and meet a demand.

(section 2.0)

At the time, the 2006 Brighton Report was criticised by the BCU, not CE.

And another point on the differentiation of BCU/CE:
Looking at the the current Rivers Access website, the authors seem to play fast and loose with the terms of BCU and Canoe England. You don't join the BCU-you join your federalised subgroup. And all members are not equal when it comes to 'benefits' or subscription fees. With Tamsin Phipps going off to better things, I guess we will have to wait a few more years until we get the promised new look for RAC.

[morsey]

With Tamsin Phipps going off to better things, I guess we will have to wait a few more years until we get the promised new look for RAC.

Has Tamsin Phipps-Owen actually moved on? I read it as an extension of her current work!

[Adrian Cooper]

I see the 'Waterways Charter' is no longer on the CE website.

http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/p ... harter.pdf

Thanks Jon, silly me, I looked in 'Waterways' and 'Access' and then used the search facility which revealed nothing on its first two pages. If only I'd thought 'Media' was the place to find this sort of thing.

[Jon Wood]

My apologies, Morsey, you're probably right. I think I had Mark R's comment lodged in my head.

From the BCU website:

Canoe England runs a 'Rivers Access Campaign'. The campaign Manager is Tamsin Phipps tamsin.phipps@bcu.org.uk

(as in not 'Canoe England'-Even the people who work there don't know what body they represent)

Either way, I'm sure that she and the head of Waterways & Environment are far too busy to oversee the public face of a campaign.

[Skyak]

While it's nice to hear what else is happening around the home nations, this started as a Scottish communication issue. Please return to the start of the thread and comment on this important information given freely by an ordinary member.

[sleepybubble]

While it's nice to hear what else is happening around the home nations, this started as a Scottish communication issue. Please return to the start of the thread and comment on this important information given freely by an ordinary member.

I think you'd get a much better response by publishing some of the more inflamatory behind the scenes communications. The original posts in this thread are fairly obfuscated and do not present the issue succintly enough. For the few people who are actually aware of what the issue is it makes sense. For everybody else its just a slightly longwinded post that seems to be complaining about something. Hence it got the initial responses it did.

The fact that you have come back to post on here again indicates this issue is not resolved. The membership is still in dark I would imagine.

Which is just my own objective viewpoint of what I have seen so far. :)

Mark

[Paul Cr]

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,

On dear. That is quite scary, but rather underlines the point in the Touring Committee's resignation letter"...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."

Apologies for repeating the quote, but saves going back a page. I hope you have read MikeB's post and re-educated them by now?

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?

If you are referring to me, I have served on the Board, the Access Committee, as Festival Co-ordinator, on the committee/group for first SCA website, and latterly the Touring Committee. At all times I did my best to support the Board and SCA Members.

Paul

[macksteve]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Lets get back to Paul Mills original post, the Scottish coaching issue -

If Paul Mills is speaking out and has concerns then I am very concerned, he is not one to be nefarious (however that's spelt), underhand, dishonest or one to speak out of a normal communication stream \ group or committee without a very good reason to.

I am also rather astounded that we have a situation of a new committee of RCO's being formed, a major change without any SCA information being sent out to mere members and coaches like me before it seems its being implemented. This seems to be direction from within a business rather than what I view the SCA to be "a voluntary member led organisation", changes at this level should be brought to the coaching committee AGM for the members and coaches to vote on. This would be democracy.

And also as far as I was aware we already had a committee of RCOS, also with some technical experts on it as well, that's the way it seemed to me in my voluntary experience of 12 years as the Highland and Islands RCO. Why replace this with a new committee of the same people, Why ? What reasons ? What need ? Why don't the coaches have a say ? Why didn't anyone tell us or decide to consult with us ?

RCO's and people on SCA coaching committee's should be voted in by the coaches to represent them, not appointed by the board, This would seem fundamental to the situation in my view.

Something seems very wrong, we need to be informed and consulted about this before any changes are made.

It reads to me that the board feels we don't need any SCA technical committees, development of the UKCC scheme only came to be with the drive of the SCA technical committee's, it had stalled further south, getting rid of an effective voluntary workforce does not seem best service to the membership.

And as for the access situation down south, you have my sincere commiserations and pity, but take some advice from a simple highland lad, we never accepted serfdom from the Normans or the Romans, you must fight for your moral rights, if your not getting them then perhaps you are using the wrong approach folks.

Steve Mackinnon
Scottish coach and paddler
Previous SCA RCO
Previous SCA Stand in National Access Officer
Previous SCA River Advisor

[MikeB]

Steve - given this appears to be the only open communication method by which people can voice concerns over this, might I suggest that other coaches should be encouraged to do likewise?

The natural place for such concerns would of course normally be a more private forum within the SCA embrace, but as that means of communication has been removed, so denying people a voice during a time of change - - -

I have considerable experience of managing and implementing change in my professional world - one of the key aspects is to communicate well and clearly. I have to question whether this is happening within the SCA at present.

Mike.

[Fast Pat]

I have to question whether this is happening within the SCA at present.

Mike.

Or CE / BCU

[MikeB]

I have to question whether this is happening within the SCA at present.

Mike.

Or CE / BCU

Quite so - there is a common thread. But it would be good to keep this particular discussion relevant to SCA and not dilute it with the problems elsewhere. Mike.

[Skyak]

The SCA Board met with coaching committee tonight. I am sad and frustrated to report that despite coaching committee's request that the membership be consulted first the Board have decided to go ahead with the new restructure of coaching committee as of now. The restructure is needed but I and others felt consultation with SCA members was first required and we had a timeline proposed for this. The new committee will meet next week but without me as I have effectively been sacked as chairman tonight.

Gordon Brown

[MikeB]

Shocking. Mike.

[Robert Craig]

To lose one committee may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.

Less flippantly, what are the remedies?

The AGM is coming up in October. An AGM motion has to (somewhat bizarrely) be submitted in June; a Director can be proposed for a vacancy at any time up to and including the date of the meeting.

A better way forward might be a separate organisation – a National Facilitating Body. Leave the Association to do what it does well – mostly the competitive side – and have a parallel organisation for the things the current Association doesn’t want, such as recreational clubs and touring.

Anyone up for it?

[Murty]

Time to get members to call another EGM and bring back a system and SCA that all paddlers and coaches can enjoy being members off

[Brian Chapman]

To lose one committee may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.

Less flippantly, what are the remedies?

The AGM is coming up in October. An AGM motion has to (somewhat bizarrely) be submitted in June; a Director can be proposed for a vacancy at any time up to and including the date of the meeting.

A better way forward might be a separate organisation – a National Facilitating Body. Leave the Association to do what it does well – mostly the competitive side – and have a parallel organisation for the things the current Association doesn’t want, such as recreational clubs and touring.

Anyone up for it?

Robert, I am not sure where your information on timescales comes from, but I would refer you to the Articles of Association in the "about us" section of the SCA website.

Article 5.5 says that nominations for available director positions must be received by 42 days prior to the AGM date.

This is to allow time for a postal ballot of all members to be held for any contested positions and the result to be available for notification at the AGM.

Article 8.1 states that motions that members wish to have on the agenda for the AGM must be received by 15th August prior to the AGM.

This is to allow for the motions to be incorporated into the agenda and added to the proxy form which is sent to all members to allow everyone the opportunity to express their views even if they cannot attend the meeting themselves.

I hope that this helps to clarify the situation.

Brian