Grave concerns over SCA GM

Inland paddling
Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Dave McCraw »

I was going to post into the morass of the existing discussion but my life energy was too depleted by trying to re-read it. So, I would like to start a separate topic focused on the General Meeting (please, no ranting about whether you could get a day's training for less than £2.99 in the good old days!)

I'm currently trying to work out what to do as far as the three motions go:
1. The SCA Board will withdraw the announced £5 levy to non-members of SCA affiliated clubs and make no levy on this category of club member.
I was under the impression that as a result of the last AGM, the levy has already been withdrawn pending a full consultation with both SCA members and affiliated members (i.e. the clubs) to report back at the next AGM. Doesn't this resolution essentially shut down that consultation? What's wrong with having a consultation with everyone, not just the few members likely to turn up at the GM, and then put it to the AGM?

If this motion is defeated, am I correct in saying that the SCA membership will effectively have voted *in favour* of the £5 levy, and the consultation is still duff?
2. Any proposed future changes to membership or other fees will be considered by SCA members at an AGM or SGM and be voted on by members at the same AGM/SGM. The SCA board will draw up any required changes to the Articles of Association to facilitate this.
I might be misunderstanding, but basically this is saying that we shouldn't trust the elected board with the running of the SCA, right?

I was under the impression that when I elected the board members, I was giving them a 12 month mandate to run the SCA (including working out how to pay the bills). What's the point in having a democratically-elected board if we want to second-guess every decision at a full GM? If they aren't doing a good job, they can be voted off at the next AGM. This is how representative democracy works!

This motion sounds a bit too much like a vote of no-confidence to me. Has the proposed £5 levy provoked a vengeance motion from some unhappy members? Or is that too cynical?
3. An open and consultative review will be conducted by the SCA on coaching and the introduction, impact and content of the UKCC Awards in Scotland, to include the following:

3.1 The appointment of the Review Group of up to 8 full SCA members made up of a majority of non SCA Officers, Officials, Technical or other Committee or Board members. These majority members of the Review Group should be invited as volunteers onto the Review Group at this SGM, and where there are more than 5 volunteers, then voting should take place at the meeting - allowing the use of the SCA proxy voting arrangements.
This is very worrying. If the CCCUK have enough votes to carry the motion, then clearly they'll have enough votes to elect themselves onto the Review Group exclusively - 100% of the group will be Jim Breen & associates. So, what this motion is effectively saying is, "do you want to make CCCUK an official Review Group of the SCA"?
3.2 The Review Group will prepare, confirm and publish its intended Terms of Reference to members before commencing its review.
Now extremely worried. So it's really "do you want to make CCCUK an official Review Group of the SCA, able to dream up its own Terms of Reference".

Suppose, for instance, that the Review Group decided to include the confidence of the membership in the SCA Board in its remit, and then (surprise) decided to recommend that they should all resign?
3.3 Consultation in the review process will be undertaken with all registered SCA coaches, Full Members, all clubs and organisations affiliated to the SCA, and with others as the Review Group sees fit
I.e. the SCA would be obliged to fund a potentially limitless number of letters and/or phone calls to *every single member* as long as the Review Group (read, CCCUK) should see fit within their self-defined terms of reference? Sounding better and better. There are already insufficient resources to address existing issues like the hydro problem. Where will the time and money come from to run this infinite review?
The review will commence within 10 weeks of the adoption of this motion at the SGM. All findings and recommendations in the review shall be made available to the SCA membership within 4 weeks of the completion of the review. Thereafter within a further 4 weeks, a Special General Meeting of the SCA will be called to review these findings and recommendations and to decide on their implementation, irrespective of current relationships, agreements and any other reviews or studies operating or planned within the BCU federated structure.
This is a bit bizarre. Apart from notably declining to specify a timeframe for the review (boundless), we see a further expensive GM to vote on the results (not a presentation at the next AGM) and there is a beautiful catch-all that says even the SCA's membership within the federated BCU is subservient to implementing the recommendations of the CCCUK review. The existing BCU review (which explicitly included UKCC awards in its terms of reference) is to be ignored.

At the moment, I fail to see anything of merit (and a lot to fear) in this GM. It's bad enough trying to get at the BCU coaching scheme through the SCA, but to do so with a group consisting perhaps entirely of the CCCUK Scottish co-ordinators with an unlimited terms of reference, and a blank chequebook is rather scary.

User avatar
MikeB
Posts: 8093
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:44 pm
Location: Scotland
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by MikeB »

The sentiments are possibly not without merit, depending on whether one views the recent actions and responses of the board with regard to the concerns raised by Jim Breem and associates as being effective, democratic, transparent and in the best interests of all SCA members.

The wording of the motions are extremely poor and had they been better proposed I would have used my proxy vote with regard to the 3rd motion. The other two are smoke screens.

I, for one, am not prepared to vote on such a wide ranging, poorly presented and open-ended proposal. Which is a pity, as an important opportunity for SCA members to voice (and take action on) some very real and genuine concerns has been missed.

However, one minor point Dave - on one hand you defend representative democracy - on the other you deny it. Surely if CCCUK can muster sufficient representation then that is a)democratic and b) says quite a lot?

Mike.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 5809
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by TheKrikkitWars »

Well clearly, you should make a counterproposal that addreses Daves concerns, without totally removing the review process.
ONE BLADE, ONE LOVE, [TOO] MANY PIES


Joshua Kelly

Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Dave McCraw »

TheKrikkitWars wrote:Well clearly, you should make a counterproposal that addreses Daves concerns, without totally removing the review process.
The problem is that by law, these and only these three things can be voted on at the GM. In order to table modified motions there would need to be a further GM (costing the equivalent of a second year's access budget?).

Besides, I understand that CCCUK declined an invitation to meet with representatives of the SCA to tighten up the wording - so the cynic in me wonders if the specification of such an unlimited scope is accidental.
MikeB wrote:I, for one, am not prepared to vote on such a wide ranging, poorly presented and open-ended proposal. Which is a pity, as an important opportunity for SCA members to voice (and take action on) some very real and genuine concerns has been missed.
Mike, does this mean you will be sending in your proxy for the Chair? I really think this is too important to sit on the fence...
MikeB wrote:However, one minor point Dave - on one hand you defend representative democracy - on the other you deny it. Surely if CCCUK can muster sufficient representation then that is a)democratic and b) says quite a lot?
Good point, Mike. The difference is that everyone fully understands what they are voting for when they elect each member of the board. What concerns me about CCCUK and this general meeting is that it is not clear who is actually involved and what support they have. Initially I thought CCCUK sounded like a great bit of grassroots activism but the incessant refusal to address direct questions on their mandate (plus this sneaky bit of politics) has soured me.

If people were voting for a review with defined terms of reference, some sort of budget (time-wise, money-wise) and a representative membership (i.e. not the Scottish co-ordinating group of CCCUK) then I would indeed go with the democratic flow.

But, allow me to be ultra-cynical for a moment, and imagine that the motion against the already-suspended £5 levy has been intentionally conflated with the review motion to ensure a good support of proxy votes, intended to oppose the levy but which will 'incidentally' be used to drive through the Scottish co-ordinating group of CCCUK into 'super review' positions.

Am I just too suspicious?

User avatar
MikeB
Posts: 8093
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:44 pm
Location: Scotland
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by MikeB »

Dave - would you care to include the statements made by the SCA on the notification and proxy voting papers please? Notably the highly negative steer given with regard to the rationale behind this, and specifically the highly biased
emphasis on the cost implications.

That does not, to my mind, constitute an objective input from the SCA board. Which I find somewhat worrying.

Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Dave McCraw »

Mike - I assume you mean the GM board response, but I can't see which bit you'd like me to include specifically.

On the general point, is it biased of the board to emphasise the cost/resourcing implications (or any other implications) of resolutions that they do not agree with? Speaking for myself, I elected the board to run the SCA as best they can. If a resolution comes up which is not in the interests of paddlers/the SCA I expect (demand) the board to oppose it. In this case I don't want to hear a best-case scenario but the board's considered recommendation, which is to oppose for various reasons. There are of course some arguments the other way (which it is for CCCUK to make).

i.e. I don't see the board as neutral arbiters between the pro-UKCC and anti-UKCC camps, but as integral players who should be expected (required) to take sides. Perhaps I am putting too much trust in the board having paddlers' interests at heart?

Harvey.Anderson
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Harvey.Anderson »

Dave,

With the exception of the cost, there is no need to be concerned.

CCCUK does not have the support that is claimed and even if it did how
are the proposed activities going to be funded?

I would encourage all SCA members to use there right to vote.

Harvey

Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Dave McCraw »

Someone from the SCA would probably need to clarify what would happen if, say, the motion passed but there was only enough money to pay for one of, i.e. the access post or the review. My fear would be that the SCA would be obliged to fund the review even if it meant sacrificing normal operations.

Voter apathy is what I mainly fear. I'm sure that a majority of members, if forced to vote would not choose to support an open-ended blank cheque review by CCCUK's Scottish posse. But, who will be more motivated to send in their proxy forms, CCCUK supporters or the average member?

chrisclark
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by chrisclark »

Good to see a new thread hopefully dealing with the motions.

I fully support the motions.

I fail to see any problem with asking a board to come to the membership once a year and asking them to vote on fees. It worked in the past. Does anyone know how often the proposed fees were voted down in the past? What it does do is make sure that our board has consulted and explained the fees fully.

Having been at the AGM, I for one was apalled to hear one director state that he had consulted three clubs, yes three clubs, on this increase. I also watched in shock as our treasurer whilst been questioned from the floor, left the platform refusing to debate further. Not the consultation I would have expected.


Motion 3 is an attempt not to fling out UKCC but to answers serious concerns that have been raised by some coaches and clubs. It proposes review to look at coaching in Scotland. We have now, and will have for at least the next 20 years two coaching schemes often with identical names. I don't think anyone could have forseen this chaos six years ago.


But the review includes coaching and not justthe UKCC. I for one feel that we need to look closely at our whole system and stucture of RCOs , coaching panels, course providers etc.... . Do they still meet the needs of coaching in Scotland? Can we do better? I do not fear a review that will consult widely and I feel coaching is the most important aspect to the future of the SCA.

Chris Clark

Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Dave McCraw »

Thanks for the reply, Chris. Good to hear from someone on the 'pro' side of the fence :-)
chrisclark wrote:I fail to see any problem with asking a board to come to the membership once a year and asking them to vote on fees. It worked in the past. Does anyone know how often the proposed fees were voted down in the past? What it does do is make sure that our board has consulted and explained the fees fully.
So your main argument in favour of requiring a full vote by membership is that in the past, the membership never voted against the board anyway? Hmm. It's still not clear to me what problem with the membership fees exists, that we need a vote to say we don't trust the board, and a rush one before the next AGM, at great cost and inconvenience.
chrisclark wrote:Having been at the AGM, I for one was apalled to hear one director state that he had consulted three clubs, yes three clubs, on this increase. I also watched in shock as our treasurer whilst been questioned from the floor, left the platform refusing to debate further. Not the consultation I would have expected.
I wasn't at the AGM so I can't comment. It also seems bizarre to me if the funding structure was intended to change so much with no consultation - however as we have seen, the board listened to members' concerns, withdrew the £5 levy and have started consulting with all clubs over what should be done. This motion puts down a blanket restriction that no money can be retrieved on behalf of affiliated members, period. How is that an improvement over the actual consultation which is ongoing with clubs?

I still don't see the need for a rush general meeting when the board had already said that there would be no changes until after the next AGM (and ultimately at the next AGM, either motion could have been brought) - still unsatisfied.
chrisclark wrote:Motion 3 is an attempt not to fling out UKCC but to answers serious concerns that have been raised by some coaches and clubs. It proposes review to look at coaching in Scotland. We have now, and will have for at least the next 20 years two coaching schemes often with identical names. I don't think anyone could have forseen this chaos six years ago.

But the review includes coaching and not justthe UKCC. I for one feel that we need to look closely at our whole system and stucture of RCOs , coaching panels, course providers etc.... . Do they still meet the needs of coaching in Scotland? Can we do better? I do not fear a review that will consult widely and I feel coaching is the most important aspect to the future of the SCA.
Wow, so suddenly the campaign against UKCC has become a review of the whole system and structure of RCOs, panels, providers, and the kitchen sink? My mind boggles. What else might the review decide to cover in its infinite remit?

In the interests of disclosure I wouldn't mind knowing if you'd be one of the members of the potential super review if CCCUK has its own way? If so you will be able to answer many more specific concerns?

User avatar
neilfarmer
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 1:11 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by neilfarmer »

chrisclark wrote:Motion 3 is an attempt not to fling out UKCC but to answers serious concerns that have been raised by some coaches and clubs. It proposes review to look at coaching in Scotland. We have now, and will have for at least the next 20 years two coaching schemes often with identical names. I don't think anyone could have forseen this chaos six years ago.
I think that is really unfair. Look back at long past threads. Are you really suggesting that any new scheme should just over write the old scheme, disenfranchising the (old) qualified coaches? In fact, that may actually be the real problem here, would be interesting to know, from CCCUK membership, how many members have/have not moved to the new scheme - had transfer been easier, would they be where they stand now - I doubt it, but we will never know, because "we have moved on from the membership/numbers game"!. The process may not have been as smooth as it could have been, but, out of the 25 signatories, how many can publicly state that they have been involved with the LCO/RCO meetings, passed on comments at the coaching conferences, from the beginning? That is not meant as a direct criticism, rather an observation.

With regard to looking at "Coaching in Scotland", you are still missing the point. We can spend as much money as we want on reviews and recommendations, it will matter not a jot. We cannot afford to withdraw from the federal agreement (imagine what that would really cost clubs and voluntary coaches) and the 25 signatories are picking a fight with the wrong organisation. Jim and CCCUK are perfectly knowledgeable, and must know fine well, despite the letters from BCU stating "deal with your local NGB" that they could approach the BCU with this - my real thought is why this was not the approach taken - the number of members needed to call a GM (25 for the SCA, many more for the BCU)?

chrisclark wrote:But the review includes coaching and not just the UKCC. I for one feel that we need to look closely at our whole system and stucture of RCOs , coaching panels, course providers etc.... . Do they still meet the needs of coaching in Scotland? Can we do better? I do not fear a review that will consult widely and I feel coaching is the most important aspect to the future of the SCA.
I am seriously concerned about this. Are you suggesting that the "terms of reference are already written, or indeed the 25 signatories have an outline proposal? It is likely that they will all be there and seek election to the 'review group'.

It states in 3.2 that "The review group will prepare, confirm and publish its intended Terms of Reference.......". What if the members do not agree, will this go to a postal vote, another GM, what consultation will there be, or do you intend the review group, once elected, to have a carte-blanche? Thinking further, where will they be published? At what cost?

Are you suggesting that this review group will suggest a wholescale review of the coaching structure, which would be the remit of the coaching committee? If that is what they want to do, why not join the coaching committee?

What right will the review group have, to make recommendations on commercial providers of BCU awards?


Incidentally, a much better place (new thread) for this discussion.
Neil Farmer.

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Adrian Cooper »

We have our club AGM this month. At each and every AGM we, the members, vote on the level of fees for all classes of members and visitors. The committee makes a recommendation and the members are invited to discuss and, if necessary, to change the proposal.

Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Dave McCraw »

The last club I was in, the committee set the fees, on the basis that they were elected to run the club.

Naturally if they all got drunk and put an extra zero on, anyone could have called them to heel - but we didn't all vote on every action of the committee (otherwise you may as well not have one). I guess it is a question of trust, if a club/organisation has a working system but there is a movement to remove authority from the committee, this suggests to me a lack of confidence in the elected representatives.

chrisclark
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by chrisclark »

I don't and never have suggested getting rid of old scheme...I point out what I think is a mess... I think we can and must do better.....as you probably can guess I have old scheme qualifications. I repeat - did any one really envisage this mess?

The motion on coaching does not say exclusively look at UKCC rather that it should be included. I repeat coaching is key to our future!

No one is raising withdrawl except the board. We are part of a Federal system and we must exercise our right to influence that. It wasn't that long ago that the WCA were openly question the UKCC. Are you suggesting that the SCA have no influence in BCU coaching?

And yes I have attended several meetings in my area most between the local club and the coaching rep. I can't remember when the last time that my local coaching panel met....in fact there does not seem to be clear guidelines on how often coaching panels meet or how and when they chose an RCO. I think the structures need look at and I raised this at the coaching conference.

Is the possiblity of a review that bad?

Trying to honestly answer many posts before I go back to work so please excuse the randomness

The point about asking the AGM on fees is that with good consultation the board will probably carry the vote in most cases....having to ask the membership to vote usually is the carrot/stick that ensures the membership are properly consulted and issues explained. Sadly from the reaction at the agm this did happen.

I would not seek to be on review panel (being careful here as I am an avid viewer of 'Yes Minister') my skills and motivation are not good enough. I would however be happy to be consulted.

Hope that answers some of points raised.

Chris Clark

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Jim »

Good call Dave, I had been considering starting a separate thread because I wanted to shrug off the bickering and concentrate on the issues, then I started to join the existing thread.

My latest post can be found here (hopefully that takes you directly to it). Interestingly we have come to several of the same conclusions, although mine are more long winded.

MikeB - I agree that the first 2 resolutions are of little relevance but you know how it is, start telling people they are missing out on a democratic right and they will join your bandwagon. As Dave points out, the board can be not re-elected if the members don't like their decisions (not sure all posts are elected annually though?) and given the level of attendance at most AGMs it should not be difficult to raise support for a coup at that time if required. Of course that would require the coup to provide volunteers to fill the posts, call me cynical but I doubt there are many people prepared to give up their time for it - I'm certainly not!

I also completely agree with Mike on resolution 3. There is an issue that does need to be talked about, but resolution 3 is the wrong way to do it.

ChrisClark - your intention may not be to fling out the UKCC stuff, but you need to understand that as worded, that option exists as a possible course of action for the review panel. In such a woolly and non specific resolution, that option is quite specifically included by the wording and I fully believe is the main concern that some of us have.
Is it possible that one or some of the signatories may be intending for this to happen and hoping to get the rest of you to support it further down the line?
You may have the best intentions, yet may actually be a pawn.
Remember, the wording cannot be changed now that the calling notices have gone out.

Once again, agreeing with MikeB (I'll find something to argue with him about on the sea forum I'm sure) I was initially shocked by the tone of the SCA board's response/advice on the resolutions. It has taken me several days to work out what I really believe is best (I think it is quite clear by now what my conclusions are but everyone should draw their own) and I have to say that I actually wanted to be able to support the resolutions at one time.

Please everyone (SCA voters that is), read the facts, ignore the arguing, the hype, the spin (from both sides) try to understand what the resolutions mean and what the implications of them could be, and then make up your own mind.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Jim »

chrisclark wrote:I would not seek to be on review panel (being careful here as I am an avid viewer of 'Yes Minister')
I believe the phrase we should mistrust is
"I have no intentions in that direction"

:-)

Not an avid viewer but it's on so often these days.....

chrisclark
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by chrisclark »

Thanks Jim for your thoughts on cutting through the ......

No I am not a pawn, long enough in tooth to make up my own thoughts.

No axe to grind against anyone. I previously paddled with Brian and asked my RCO to coach my son (now that's trust(actually in both counts!). It is not about personalities but what each individual thinks is the way ahead to protect and grow our sport.

I may not be right or have all the answers...often I have more questions.

But I do ask people to forget about some of the smoke and mirrors and personalities and scares being put out. Think long and hard before they vote or not as you see fit.

I have pinned my colours to the mast. Can't say more than that

Gone to do work.

Chris clark

twopigs
Posts: 1341
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: Stroud & Cheltenham
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA vs Club

Post by twopigs »

Dave McCraw wrote:The last club I was in, the committee set the fees, on the basis that they were elected to run the club.

Naturally if they all got drunk and put an extra zero on, anyone could have called them to heel - but we didn't all vote on every action of the committee (otherwise you may as well not have one). I guess it is a question of trust, if a club/organisation has a working system but there is a movement to remove authority from the committee, this suggests to me a lack of confidence in the elected representatives.
I think you should reflect on the scale of commitment required to be a Board member of the SCA (membership a few thousand, annual budget - who knows) and a committee member of a club (membership maybe 100 and annual budget maybe £10,000.) As a club member it is easy to understand the implication of voting a committee out of office, as an SCA member voting the Board out of office has slightly larger implications.
Canoeing - bigger boat, broken paddle, more skill!

twopigs
Posts: 1341
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: Stroud & Cheltenham
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by twopigs »

Adrian Cooper wrote:We have our club AGM this month. At each and every AGM we, the members, vote on the level of fees for all classes of members and visitors. The committee makes a recommendation and the members are invited to discuss and, if necessary, to change the proposal.
Same here - except our AGM was in October. BUT our members all live within twenty miles of where we had the AGM and we're only talking £20...... If the SCA were so undemocratic as to have members in Thurso (or the Islands) and hold the AGM in Edinburgh is it really going to get members travelling that far just to vote on membership fees? (Please note there is a little irony in that statement....)
Canoeing - bigger boat, broken paddle, more skill!

User avatar
stuartsmith
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:24 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by stuartsmith »

chrisclark wrote: we need to look closely at our whole system and stucture of RCOs , coaching panels, course providers etc.... . Do they still meet the needs of coaching in Scotland? Can we do better?
Just to briefly give some information which those not at the AGM may not know. The RCO role, which is central to the coaching panel set-up across Scotland, has been in the process of being reviewed by the Coaching Committee and this has been minuted in their June, September and November minutes published on the SCA website under "Coaching Committee" within Coaching. People have been working on finalising this over Christmas and I understand that a final version will be agreed and signed off at the January Coaching Committee Meeting. Remember that RCOs, like nearly everyone connected to the SCA, are volunteers, who give up their time to do this important role. Many organise their panel meetings every couple of months and get a good turnout too.

Information about the role review taking place was stated at the October AGM in relation to a question about the timescales for RCO's standing for re-election in their area. Everything in the SCA is reviewed (albeit at different timescales) as a matter of course.

User avatar
neilfarmer
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 1:11 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by neilfarmer »

chrisclark wrote:No one is raising withdrawl except the board. We are part of a Federal system and we must exercise our right to influence that. It wasn't that long ago that the WCA were openly question the UKCC. Are you suggesting that the SCA have no influence in BCU coaching?
That is not the case. I quote from your motions [3.4]

".....a Special General Meeting of the SCA will be called to review these findings and recommendations and to decide on their implementation, irrespective of current relationships, agreements and any other reviews or studies operating or planned within the BCU federated structure"

I draw your attention to the section in bold. Now, if you are not on the potential review group, their Terms of Reference are not approved by the membership, that issue could very well come up, especially if the potential review group propose something incompatible with the current federal agreement. So, I think you are very wrong, the motion as it is written could very well end up at that point. This unclear language is why the board offered to meet the 25 signatories on 20th December, something that I would have found massively inconvenient.
Neil Farmer.

User avatar
neilfarmer
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 1:11 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by neilfarmer »

As promised a while back, below is a response from me, personally, to the three motions tabled at the forthcoming SCA general meeting. I urge all SCA members that read this to vote against the motions. For clarification, I am a member of the SCA board, Recreation Stream. Again, to reiterate, this is my response, not the board position, which is spelt out in the papers sent to the members.
Motion 1 wrote:1. The SCA Board will withdraw the announced £5 levy to non-members of SCA affiliated clubs and make no levy on this category of club member.
This is very undemocratic, and surprising, considering the complaint about a 'lack of democracy' in introducing the £5 fee by the board. At the AGM, the fees were proposed, people complained, the board withdrew the position and stated that we would carry out a consultation exercise with clubs. This motions pre-empts that consultation exercise, something which can hardly be considered democratic! It further restricts the board from running the SCA properly, by stating "...will make no levy on this category of club member", meaning individual member will always have to pay increased fees. Yes, it can be overturned at a future AGM/GM, but in light of the consultation (that should be started now, but cannot be as all work is directed towards this), the motion is pointless.

Motion 2 wrote:2. Any proposed future changes to membership or other fees will be considered by SCA members at an AGM or SGM and be voted on by members at the same AGM/ SGM. The SCA Board will draw up any required changes to the Articles of Association to facilitate this.
This is a motion that could easily have been taken to the next AGM, saving a considerable amount of work and money. In fact, if people felt that strongly, they should have voted against the resolution giving the board these powers at a very recent AGM [someone here did mention that they had spoken out against it]

Motion 3 wrote:3. An open and consultative review will be conducted by the SCA on coaching and the introduction, impact and content of the UKCC Awards in Scotland, to include the following:
3.1 The appointment of the Review Group of up to 8 full SCA members made up of a majority of non SCA Officers, Officials, Technical or other Committee or Board members. These majority members of the Review Group should be invited as volunteers onto the Review Group at this SGM, and where there are more than 5 volunteers, then voting should take place at the meeting – allowing the use of the SCA proxy voting arrangements.
3.2 The Review Group will prepare, confirm and publish its intended Terms of Reference to members before commencing its review.
3.3 Consultation in the review process will be undertaken with all registered SCA coaches, Full Members, all clubs and organisations affiliated to the SCA, and with others as the Review Group sees fit.
3.4 The review will commence within 10 weeks of the adoption of this motion at the SGM. All findings and recommendations in the review shall be made available to the SCA membership within 4 weeks of the completion of the review. Thereafter within a further 4 weeks, a Special General Meeting of the SCA will be called to review these findings and recommendations and to decide on their implementation, irrespective of current relationships, agreements and any other reviews or studies operating or planned within the BCU federated structure.
3.1 - How will the proxy voters get to decide who in fact goes on this group? They will not know who is standing. Not going to get a cross section of the SCA at a meeting such as this.
3.2 - Surely, for people to agree to this 'special review', they should already be out in the open? We now see that the remit could be extended to cover "all coaching activities, including commercial providers". How will the membership have any approval over the TofR? It may be 'open', but if it was 'transparent', the TofR would be in alongside these motions.
3.3 - "and with others as the Review group sees fit" ~ you are in fact saying 'everyone' here?
3.4 - So, in addition to the current general meeting, costing ~£5000, there will be another one, costing even more money. Unless the review takes up to 6 months, the follow up meeting cannot coincide with any potential AGM. There are also costs associated with the review group meeting - how are they going to communicate with the membership and 'others'? At the end of that, the 25 proposers are suggesting, I think, that the membership would decide at the second general meeting how these 'recommendations would be implemented'. It is possible that the review group may suggest things that are impossible in the current federal structure, what then? Will the review group clearly set out the consequences of taking any proposed actions? At the end of the day, the BCU may chose to ignore the recommendations, then we are back where we started, with a whole lot less money to spend on clubs, coaches and services!! Brilliant!! Maybe then, you will go to the BCU, call a general meeting and go through the whole expensive process again, even more money wasted, avoidable & unbelievable!!
Neil Farmer.

User avatar
MikeB
Posts: 8093
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:44 pm
Location: Scotland
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by MikeB »

Jim wrote:I also completely agree with Mike on resolution 3. There is an issue that does need to be talked about, but resolution 3 is the wrong way to do it.

(snip)

I have to say that I actually wanted to be able to support the resolutions at one time.
I have to say that I have very real concerns over a great many things I'm aware of within SCA circles - not least of which being the much noted "walk out" at the AGM. Now, I wasn't there, but I've had enough feedback on it to feel I can comment. That was, frankly, apalling.

So too is the manner in which the entire issue of coaching has been addressed, resulting in the very public (but understandable) factional approach led by Jim Breem. While we must be very careful not to confuse a lot of noise and publicity with actuality, the fact remains that until Jim raised into the public arena, it could well be argued that the SCA attempted to quietly bury the issue and the very real concerns being raised by a large number of people in a great many clubs.

Given how democratic and representative the SCA is (was?) regarded as being, this smacks of a heavy handed arrogance.

As one who is directly effected by the changes in the coaching quals requirement, I do of course have a vested interest. Until recently, I also sat on an SCA Committee - for the record, that I no longer do was in no part influenced by the shenanigans going on over this btw. So, in principle, I'm generally very "pro SCA".

However, like Jim, I actually wanted to support the principle of the resolution. I cannot, in all honesty and overall loyalty, support Resolution 3 in the way it is worded. Will I submit a proxy vote? That's my private decision - I deeply resent being put into this position however and while I abhor taking such a stance, I may well abstain - and if I do, that will be as a marked "protest vote" rather than lack of interest.

Mike.

User avatar
neilfarmer
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 1:11 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by neilfarmer »

MikeB wrote:
Jim wrote:I also completely agree with Mike on resolution 3. There is an issue that does need to be talked about, but resolution 3 is the wrong way to do it.
(snip)
I have to say that I actually wanted to be able to support the resolutions at one time.
You can, you agree or disagree to each of the motions as stated on the proxy form.

MikeB wrote:I have to say that I have very real concerns over a great many things I'm aware of within SCA circles - not least of which being the much noted "walk out" at the AGM. Now, I wasn't there, but I've had enough feedback on it to feel I can comment. That was, frankly, apalling.
I was there, but am not really willing to comment here. However, the debate did get heated, if someone felt a personal slight, then often to avoid further confrontation, temporary exit is the best strategy.

MikeB wrote:So too is the manner in which the entire issue of coaching has been addressed, resulting in the very public (but understandable) factional approach led by Jim Breem. While we must be very careful not to confuse a lot of noise and publicity with actuality, the fact remains that until Jim raised into the public arena, it could well be argued that the SCA attempted to quietly bury the issue and the very real concerns being raised by a large number of people in a great many clubs.
Given how democratic and representative the SCA is (was?) regarded as being, this smacks of a heavy handed arrogance.
As one who is directly effected by the changes in the coaching quals requirement, I do of course have a vested interest. Until recently, I also sat on an SCA Committee - for the record, that I no longer do was in no part influenced by the shenanigans going on over this btw. So, in principle, I'm generally very "pro SCA".
I totally disagree. I do not think that the SCA have "quietly tried to bury the issue" at all. I do not see what you want the SCA to do. There is much that is and has been done, both to support clubs and influence the coaching awards. The WCA made a 'great big public statement' and very little else, wow (for information, I am not criticising the WCA or what has happened). Is that (public statement) what you want from the SCA? The SCA coaching staff have just finished contacting every coach that has been through the UKCC Level2 award and fed this into the BCU Level2 review. Can that be said about CE, WCA, CANI? Let their members tell us! Surely that is a good thing, and look where it gets us!

Jim Breen represents and organised a UK wide body and is now focusing entirely on the SCA, a miss-aimed shot. That is probably the biggest issue regarding motion 3. It should have been directed at the BCU, and please do not tell me again "that Jim was directed towards his national body" - everyone can search and read the BCU rules!
Neil Farmer.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Jim »

neilfarmer wrote:
MikeB wrote:
Jim wrote:I also completely agree with Mike on resolution 3. There is an issue that does need to be talked about, but resolution 3 is the wrong way to do it.
(snip)
I have to say that I actually wanted to be able to support the resolutions at one time.
You can, you agree or disagree to each of the motions as stated on the proxy form.
Yes I fully understand that and I'm sure Mike does also.

Is it worth trying to get the SCA reps from the UKCC development process to summarise some of the issues they have already taken into the pot and what the results have been? Presumably they have ongoing work on the scheme which is keeping them occupied even if they are not directly involved with the GM preparations, but if they can find some time it may help develop a better understanding between all parties.

User avatar
Mr Hoppy
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: Shrewsbury

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Mr Hoppy »

neilfarmer wrote:I totally disagree. I do not think that the SCA have "quietly tried to bury the issue" at all. I do not see what you want the SCA to do. There is much that is and has been done, both to support clubs and influence the coaching awards. The WCA made a 'great big public statement' and very little else, wow (for information, I am not criticising the WCA or what has happened). Is that (public statement) what you want from the SCA? The SCA coaching staff have just finished contacting every coach that has been through the UKCC Level2 award and fed this into the BCU Level2 review. Can that be said about CE, WCA, CANI? Let their members tell us! Surely that is a good thing, and look where it gets us!
As a committee member of an English club I look on fairly enviously at the levels of support offered to one of our scottish ex-pat members in terms of support of transitioning into the UKCC scheme. The SCA appear to be very proactive in distributing information and courses supporting both transitions and coach development. It appears that certain scottish members are having a bit of a bitch and a moan without really seeing that the grass is pretty green on their side of the fence. In our club as an elected committee we have the remit to set membership fees, committee members are fully aware of the impacts of changing (or not) membership fees and these decisions are not taken lightly.

Chris

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Adrian Cooper »

Does someone who is not a member of an association have the right to be consulted on fees levied by that association.

The club levy would appear to be a charge to affiliated clubs in respect of members of that club who have no voting rights within the association.

If the only people who are entitled to vote for or against the levy are the members, why should anyone else be consulted?

Is this democratic?

User avatar
neilfarmer
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 1:11 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by neilfarmer »

Adrian Cooper wrote:Does someone who is not a member of an association have the right to be consulted on fees levied by that association.
The club levy would appear to be a charge to affiliated clubs in respect of members of that club who have no voting rights within the association.
If the only people who are entitled to vote for or against the levy are the members, why should anyone else be consulted?
Is this democratic?
I think that it is right to consult them (club members), as they are being included in the charge. The idea of including them as individual members has been raised, and I imagine would be part of the consultation, if it happens. I personally support the idea that all club members should be voting members of the SCA.
Neil Farmer.

Dave McCraw
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by Dave McCraw »

Adrian Cooper wrote:Does someone who is not a member of an association have the right to be consulted on fees levied by that association.

The club levy would appear to be a charge to affiliated clubs in respect of members of that club who have no voting rights within the association.

If the only people who are entitled to vote for or against the levy are the members, why should anyone else be consulted?

Is this democratic?
Well you can't have your cake and eat it. Clubs can be affiliated yet have no members who are actual members of the SCA - are these clubs engaging with the governing body despite having "no right to be consulted"? Hopefully not since they pay to be affiliated!

Nobody can really argue that a vote open to all members is undemocratic, but I am comfortable with the idea that different types of consultation/vote are "less democratic" or perhaps, more open to bias by narrow interests. The current consultation with clubs over the suspended £5 levy would be voteable at the AGM later this year, when the attendance is perhaps more representative than it will be at the GM called by single-issue campaigners.

But then, perhaps Monklands doesn't want other clubs to be consulted?

User avatar
neilfarmer
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 1:11 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Grave concerns over SCA GM

Post by neilfarmer »

Just a quick clarification regarding the information sent out with the calling notices. On this forum and elsewhere, it has been suggested that they information sent out has been 'one sided'. Obviously, the board opppose the resolutions and sent that information out.

Had the 25 signatories, or some of them, taken up the offer to meet the board before the calling notices were sent out (Sunday 20th December 2009), we could have discussed various issues, suggested re-wording and clarification of the resolutions and that there was the option to add in some supporting statements. Unfortunately, they did not feel the need for such a meeting and thus missed that opportunity.
Neil Farmer.

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”