ICU presidet resignation

nouse4aname

Meanwhile, on a far more reputable forum than boards...
This evening i happened to read that certain board members voted against Pat's motion out of pure spite against the TDU, because they stole our beloved coaching syllabus!!! :eek:



Of all the madness i've read over the last few weeks, this was hands down the funniest conspiracy theory yet! If the discipline chairs actually cared that much about the coaching syllabus we'd of had the bloody thing written 2 years ago...

To the men in the tinfoil hats:
The board voted against Pat's motion for one reason. He couldn't provide a single justifiable reason for firing the GM. End of story.

talkin sense

Why anyone would jump to the conclusion that I am a member of the Board is beyond me. Just goes to show that the conspiracy theories range wide and deep.

Is it because I used information I picked up at ADM's and discussions with members of the Board or that I made it my business to actually find out what was going on instead of jumping to conclusions or believing the skewed version of the truth that Seanie is so insistent on but is unchallengeable because of e way he "moderates" his website?

Or is it because the truth simply doesn't tie in with the conspiracy theory?

For the record I am not a member of the Board and to be fair to him/her neither am I nouse4aname who has probably talked as much sense on this thread as anyone.

Who cares who I am or how many postings I have. In my opinion (my nod to the moderator) people who make thousands of posts either knows lot about everything or are windbags. I suspect that windbags maybe more accurate.

I come from a generation (figure this one out) where less is more and greater respect is held for those who speak rarely but who speak the truth and do not have something to say on everything no matter how big or small.

To the moderator - in my opinion you have stretched way beyond the concept of moderation and have moved into editorial territory. Removing my comment that it was a silly thing to suggest that the GM should go on the dole to appease certain people calls your independence into question. That Remains a validly held view or opinion - call it what you want - and it's removal calls your partiality into question. Avoid insulting remarks by all means but don't censor!!

Zuppy

talkin sense wrote: »

To the moderator - in my opinion you have stretched way beyond the concept of moderation and have moved into editorial territory. Removing my comment that it was a silly thing to suggest that the GM should go on the dole to appease certain people calls your independence into question. That Remains a validly held view or opinion - call it what you want - and it's removal calls your partiality into question. Avoid insulting remarks by all means but don't censor!!

Fair comment and I will take it on board. As a person involved in this discussion I agree with your point. The problem is as a Mod I can not expose boards to legal repercussions and all the legal threats to date in relation to this topic stem in relation to the appointment of the GM and its discussion on another forum. I may have been a bit over zealous in deleting that comment to prevent the discussion going in that direction. Right or wrong, it is done.

Here I am both a Mod and a user. I have made it clear in my postings which hat I am wearing and in part withheld my more extreme personal views. Anyone is free to report my posts or as a number of you have done, to PM me directly if it causes you concern and as I have told people who have questioned me and disagreed, I will refer the disagreement to my co Mod.

I have allowed the discussion free reign which didn't work but it is also not my intention to use this forum as a soapbox. Apologies if my middle ground strays but do call me out on it if you wish. I will not tolerate personal abuse or unfounded allegations, after that I am usually pleased to let things run, past history of this board pre this topi will show you that we are a bit like a sleepy hollow.

Also I have no intention of asking anyone to name themselves but please do not think that a name makes you anonymous and immune to consequences of your words. This is friendly advice to anyone who uses any forum.

End Mod rant!

seanieb

nouse4aname wrote: »

Meanwhile, on a far more reputable forum than boards...
This evening i happened to read that certain board members voted against Pat's motion out of pure spite against the TDU, because they stole our beloved coaching syllabus!!! :eek:

Of all the madness i've read over the last few weeks, this was hands down the funniest conspiracy theory yet! If the discipline chairs actually cared that much about the coaching syllabus we'd of had the bloody thing written 2 years ago...

To the men in the tinfoil hats:
The board voted against Pat's motion for one reason. He couldn't provide a single justifiable reason for firing the GM. End of story.

No one has insight into the minds of all the board members and that includes you. Before you sit back thinking you are 100% correct you should try talking to the Womens Polo Chair.

Having said that. Why do their motivations matter? It's done. How they voted is the only thing that matters to the wider ICU. I'm more interested in what comes next for the TDU and the ICU.

talkin sense wrote: »

I made it my business to actually find out what was going on instead of jumping to conclusions or believing the skewed version of the truth that Seanie is so insistent on but is unchallengeable because of e way he "moderates" his website?

Or is it because the truth simply doesn't tie in with the conspiracy theory?

Three questions:
1. What is the "version of the truth that" I'm insistent on? Seriously, what have I written other than the issues I had hiring process of the GM? I'd be happy to discuss that in-depth on the thread on IWW (where it wont get taken down)

2. What on earth do you mean unchangeable because of the way I "moderate" my website? How do I limit your or anyones ability to express themselves?

3. Why can't you simply debate on the points without having to resort to petty tactics like resorting to calling opinions "conspiracy" theories in an effort to belittle them.

Listen, while I might not see eye to eye with ye on every point, you'll have to forgiven myself and others skepticism. Several years ago I stood up and an ICU AGM and pointed out that there were several issues with the audited books that were presented to them members. People referred to it as a conspiracy theory too, I was shouted down and told "Go back to Fu*king Galway, theres no funny business here" by the majority of people there. Well as it turns out it took another four years for the ICU to get to the bottom it, and it resulted in the ICU CEO being fired.

No one is right all of the time, but dismissing them and not hearing their points because it makes you uncomfortable end up in an unhealthy environments where people are afraid to point out issues.

As for this vote and the subsequent resignations, I actually think the entire thing is pretty transparent now that a lot of board members have spoken.

Things are a mess, but I don't see any conspiracy or wrong doing. People disagreed about how to run an organization and the organization is poorly structured to deal with such an issue. Thats my summary.

Zuppy

As a user;

I agree with your point on the GM staying in place as a democratic vote was held, the position has not been abused or has the GM failed to meet any targets set out as far as I am aware. If there is an issue of a subjective nature then I presume that it would mean a formal interview, like any other job, and a performance standard laid down.

So far no one has stated that any of the objective measures or predetermined performance goal nor any of the duties have been lacking. Therefore the GM has done his job, any other measures of how well would have to be determined by his direct supervisors using objective measures, like any other job!

The ex pres has also stated publicly that there has been no malfeasance or improper conduct by the board so as far as I can determine he resigned and has not stated any concrete reasons yet. And it also means, to me, that the voting was all above board.

Have I missed anything?

multisport

seanieb wrote: »

try talking to the Womens Polo Chair.

Is there a mens polo chair too

Zuppy

Ok in an effort to be a bit more constructive. How should the ICU now move forward?

Elect a new exec?
Reform the TDU?
Revamp the whole ICU?

Zuppy

I was thinking, despite the articles of CI my new board would consist of;

The technical chairs
Sprint
Slalom
Marathon
WWR
Polo
Freestyle
The alternative chair for surf, ocean racing, dragon boats and canoe sail etc
Sea rep - not sure about this one.
TDU - as a sub committee of the CI with a mandate for access and development.
Two reps from the Clubs as they are the future. :-)
One rep from the AGM or the clubs or co opted as the canoe for all rep (disability, open canoeing, women in sport, youth etc)


A large committee I know but everyone has a voice and people could miss a meeting or two. Still unsure if we should have a regional rep (outside the pale). Mirrored on what we have coz it does seem to work. Lose the executive as then everyone is the board and less of a divide.

President to be chosen from committee and by the committee.

nouse4aname

seanieb wrote: »

Before you sit back thinking you are 100% correct you should try talking to the Polo Chair.

Did that 2 weeks ago Seanie! I'm not going to post her response here unless she gives me permission, but i can assure you that it did not differ from the other 3 board members that i've spoken to. Thats a total of 4 of them that all gave me roughly the same response:

"We cannot blindly fire a person when no justifiable reasons were given. It was wrong for Pat to expect that from us."

You're right, i cannot read the minds of the other board members but i've spoken to 50% of those that voted the motion down, so i think i'm in a far better position to comment than some of the crackpots that are spouting hilarious conspiracy theories...

(edit: i deleted the "women's" bit from your quote, out of respect to Michelle. I know this was just typo but i'd expect you to do the same.)

KenHy

nouse4aname wrote: »

There WERE plenty of paddlers from competitive disciplines trying to contribute to the development of the coaching syllabus. However, when the TDU took it over last year, there was a perception (right or wrong) that all our hard work was for nothing and that now a bunch of whitewater paddlers were going to tell us all how to play polo and paddle K1's.

I see that point - I think the TDU has felt that despite their best efforts that they haven't been able to change that view. Again, come to the TDU AGM if your available and encourage anyone else you know involved in coaching to come along. As Paddy pointed out coaches are welcome.

It's not a case of whitewater paddlers preaching on how to play polo or how to paddle a K1 - no more than a slalom coach would try coach the freestyle team. But coaching/instructing will inevitably have a lot of overlap when it comes to methods of teaching and delivery of progromes. As a Kayak Instructor I'd like to be able to coach people starting off (particularly juniors) in some other disciplines, if they begin taking it seriously they will need a specialist coach, but if GP instructors like myself could get them started maybe it would increase participation across the board. I still think it makes sense to house all development, coaching and training progromes in the one place. I will admit that it won't work if it's not wanted by all parties, but I'd like to see it given a chance.

nouse4aname wrote: »

That perception is not helped by the fact that non-TDU members cannot attend meetings or vote at their AGM. How can we have a say in competitive coaching if we're not allowed put forward motions and we cannot vote. Why should we pay membership to a sub-committee of Canoeing Ireland for that privilege? I don't pay membership to marathon racing in order to vote at their AGM!

Just to point out there is no separate membership fee for the TDU - it's just a case of registering with them when joining CI. In fact TDU members get club rate membership irregardless of weather they are members of a club or not - e.g. it's €20 whereas normal individual membership is €30

nouse4aname wrote: »

Can you see how this perception (be it true or false) has developed? The TDU is currently seen by many as an elitist organization where only the select few qualified instructors can participate. Others see it as a glorified trade union for working instructors. It needs a massive change in its governance policy before competitive paddlers will feel like it is worth engaging with them. I mean, i was slagged off here by Seanie and his mates for not knowing the basic function or remit of the TDU. I think that says more about the TDU than it does about me...

Yes, I see why coaches have this perception - I don't think it is a true one however. I'd agree that they should open up voting to all CI members. But it's not too closed - they allow all coaches and instructors (including trainees!) to attend and vote as far as I know so it's not exactly a closed shop either.

Zuppy wrote: »

Ok in an effort to be a bit more constructive. How should the ICU now move forward?

Elect a new exec?
Reform the TDU?
Revamp the whole ICU?

I think

- New exec obviously needed - should be a mix of recreational and competitive paddlers, or even better people active in both scenes.

- More participation in the TDU - only needs reform to the extent that this participation is encouraged

- I'd suggest the current board structure is broadly OK. I'm not familiar with guidance on corporate governance for sporting NGBs (although I have had a read through http://www.instituteofsport.ie/Governing_Bodies/NGB_Support_Kit/2_Governance/) - but I am familiar with the guidance for companies.

Basically there should be 3 levels

Staff who run the company/body - in this case the office staff, permanent instructors, etc... They would run day to day activities and be mandated some decisions making power but would be accountable to the board. Should be headed up by a full time CEO (or GM) who would also be on board.

An executive body - elected by shareholders/members - who are responsible for the running of the body. This to include at minimum a CEO (or GM?), treasurer and secretary. Apart from the CEO not all of them would need be full time, but would have a bit more work then a standard board member. I think this would be a change in the ICU as it would mean the CEO would be directly elected by and accountable to the members. I can see that been a practical problem - so maybe a longer fixed term then one year (somewhere between 3 & 5?) would be needed and security of tenure should be provided. They'd still be accountable to an annually elected board and would not be able to overrule them.

Non-Exec board members, Ideally they'd come in from outside the sport. realistically that's not practical. So chairs of the various disciplines to my mind fill this role. They should outnumber the exec and act as a check on them doing something silly. They should be headed by a chair/president - I see where Zuppy is coming from in saying they could be elected from the board members, but I think it would be better if they were directly elected by the membership. Preferably they would be someone with knowledge of running companies/sporting bodies or a legal background, but not someone who has previously been involved at board level at the ICU.

I'd keep the board as is - with the singular addition of a canoe for all/recreational sub-committee whose chair is a board member.

I'd be against regional reps. It gives additional weight to members from one area over another which is not right in my eyes.

Like Zuppy my views on most of the above are also liable to change with the wind - they are just suggestions!

TheBlackJoke

ah deleting posts, censorship at its finest

Zuppy

TheBlackJoke wrote: »

ah deleting posts, censorship at its finest

If you continue to troll.......

See your PM before continuing to post. Thanks

TheBlackJoke

Zuppy wrote: »

If you continue to troll.......

See your PM before continuing to post. Thanks

as i said in the PM, im not trolling. Didnt realise i wasnt allowed to post my opinions based on facts, i could post evidence to back up what im saying but that could have possible legal repercussions.

nouse4aname

KenHy wrote: »

It's not a case of whitewater paddlers preaching on how to play polo or how to paddle a K1 - no more than a slalom coach would try coach the freestyle team. But coaching/instructing will inevitably have a lot of overlap when it comes to methods of teaching and delivery of progromes. As a Kayak Instructor I'd like to be able to coach people starting off (particularly juniors) in some other disciplines, if they begin taking it seriously they will need a specialist coach, but if GP instructors like myself could get them started maybe it would increase participation across the board. I still think it makes sense to house all development, coaching and training progromes in the one place. I will admit that it won't work if it's not wanted by all parties, but I'd like to see it given a chance.

I cannot argue with your logic there. I'd love to see more instructors like that! And I am glad to see the TDU putting more competitive competencies on their instructor qualifications. Its a step in the right direction. However up until now, the courses run by instructors don't have a great track record of producing top level competitive kayakers. I'm not trying to criticise you guys, its just an observation. Instructors do a great service to the sport by running summer courses across the country. You expose thousands of kids to the sport. The problem in my eyes has been that retention is poor. That's where established clubs have a definite advantage with infrastructure and equipment...

PS- I'm not against the TDU housing the coaching syllabus per se. I just have some concerns:

1) The voting structure and membership of the TDU.
2) The input (if any) that ordinary competitive paddlers will have in developing the syllabus.
3) The divisive talk of the TDU splitting away from Canoeing Ireland.

KenHy wrote: »

Just to point out there is no separate membership fee for the TDU - it's just a case of registering with them when joining CI. In fact TDU members get club rate membership irregardless of weather they are members of a club or not - e.g. it's €20 whereas normal individual membership is €30

Ok so i'm a member of a club. I'm not an instructor and i've only started on the coaching syllabus, so technically i'm not a coach. How do i currently join the TDU?

KenHy wrote: »

Yes, I see why coaches have this perception - I don't think it is a true one however. I'd agree that they should open up voting to all CI members. But it's not too closed - they allow all coaches and instructors (including trainees!) to attend and vote as far as I know so it's not exactly a closed shop either.

I think its unfair to restrict the TDU to coaches and instructors (even if they do include trainees). There's plenty of top class paddlers who's opinions and expertise on coaching/instruction are as important, if not more important. Eoin Rheinisch is not a qualified coach or instructor, but how valuable would his input be? Under the current TDU system, he cannot contribute...

Zuppy

FYI - the instructors play a major part in the athlete development, this is why the old instructor and senior instructor system had them all competing or running competitions before they qualified people.

The first exposure to paddling is with the instructor usually and then through the clubs. The first parts of the long term development plans for athletes clearly reflects this and it should.

Personally when the coaching structure is up and running, I would hope that it then reaches out to the instructors. Competitive paddlers come from recreational paddlers (with a few exceptions). Established coaching systems run lectures in the instructor training especially to expose instructors to various options. See the BCU for our closest example.

Instructors are constantly looking for CPD and new methods to instruct, coaching offers a possibility. Who better to improve your forward stroke than a sprinter. Just like a freestyler can teach edging or a polo coach can teach boat control.

There is very little difference between the percived sides in this debate (rec V comp). All need each other. While some of my fellow recreational paddlers feel under represented at CI, I don't.
Most of the technical chairs are GP paddlers too (or were), the TDU seems to be the rally flag for river runners, the clubs hold a lot of power (mostly rec paddlers) and if we don't have large numbers of paddlers the CI falls apart anyway.

The TDU can have the coaching syllabus in my opinion but to be honest I have seen very little of them as both an instructor or a coach so I think either it is the wrong place at the moment or any coaching officer will have to contend with being massively out voted on the TDU committee.

A better and a more establish place for coaching would be a High Performance development unit like in most other NGB's. This would take some time to get up and running but so would the coaching side of the TDU.

A high performance development unit would initially focus on the coaching structure and take guidance from the current carded athletes and committees. It would then develop a coaching network and a proper system of CPD which is hugely important to coaching but somewhat neglected for instructors.
After a period it would then concentrate on talent identifaction and maintaining the Long term athlete development plans. It would also focus as a clearing house for information between like minded disciplines. This is just my view when you look at how other sports have developed. Triathlons HP unit came into effect before the development and focused on talent ID ahead of the coaching structure. Same results though, either method should work.


As for the TDU going its own way?? See my previous post. It can't really. It is not the certifying body and it would take a while and a lot of if's to become it without CI. As a rival sporting body?? Good luck, divisive (to paddling) in the whole but without big numbers and the Olympic disciplines it most likey will not be considered the NGB. I believe that those paddlers who wish to break away would also have no appetite for joining a new body and building it from scratch. The current TDU needs to be open to all, just like other committees are. I don't believe for a moment that anyone who gives up their time to serve on the TDU (or any other committtee) has anything but the best interest of paddling at heart. Methods and ideals might not suit me or you but they are giving back for the good of the sport IMO!

seanieb

nouse4aname wrote: »

I think its unfair to restrict the TDU to coaches and instructors (even if they do include trainees). There's plenty of top class paddlers who's opinions and expertise on coaching/instruction are as important, if not more important. Eoin Rheinisch is not a qualified coach or instructor, but how valuable would his input be? Under the current TDU system, he cannot contribute...

I agree. You should go to the TDU AGM, there are a lot of people who feel the same way.

KenHy

nouse4aname wrote: »

Ok so i'm a member of a club. I'm not an instructor and i've only started on the coaching syllabus, so technically i'm not a coach. How do i currently join the TDU?

If your registered with the ICU office as a trainee coach (which on my understanding you would have if you've started on the coaching syllabus) then you should already be a member - might be worth clarifying that with the office though in case I'm wrong about the trainee thing, another thing I can't find anywhere on the ICU/TDU website!

Grudaire

nouse4aname wrote: »

I mean, i was slagged off here by Seanie and his mates for not knowing the basic function or remit of the TDU. I think that says more about the TDU than it does about me...

I presume this was aimed at me among others..?

In fairness now, you have a very strong (and unwavering) opinion on the matters at hand, at yet in several instances you have had a completely wrong understanding of the organisation.

You held the training centre as not being as active as it used to be as a sign of the TDU failing (deleted thread), it now presumably comes under the remit of the board/GM. Yet you only have positive things to say about the Union?


I have gone and contacted cyclegal by PM here, I would like to publically thank her for responding. But as with many posts on this thread it has only suceeded in confusing me more.

So on that note I'm going to bury my head in the sand and wait for someone I trust to decide what the truth is

nouse4aname

Cliste wrote: »

You held the training centre as not being as active as it used to be as a sign of the TDU failing (deleted thread), it now presumably comes under the remit of the board/GM. Yet you only have positive things to say about the Union?

That's actually not what i said (obviously i can't go back and quote a deleted post).

I have never professed to know anything about activity levels at the Training Centre. The first i heard about less activity there was when KenHy posted it earlier on this thread. Read my response to KenHy; "I can't really comment on that (referring to the Training Centre). I'd like to see the course numbers myself but it could be due to factors outside the control of the GM''.

Cliste wrote: »

In fairness now, you have a very strong (and unwavering) opinion on the matters at hand, at yet in several instances you have had a completely wrong understanding of the organisation.

Replace the word "organisation" with "TDU". Don't assume that my lack of understanding on TDU affairs means i don't know how this organisation is or has been run. I don't have any understanding of dragonboat racing either. Does that make me less entitled to comment on the structures and policies of paddlesport in Ireland??? Lets be clear here, the TDU is just one small sub-committee of Canoeing Ireland. Up until recently, it happened to be a sub-committee which i had very little interest in. I'm quite happy to accept that i've a limited understanding of their day to day function. My only real interest in them has been over the last 6 months when they took over the competitive coaching syllabus.

My gripe with you on previous threads was that you stated you had "no problem" with financially rewarding TDU members for their work. Why should that be the case? Is their work any more valuable than what Michelle does as a volunteer for canoe polo? This is why certain folks in canoeing view the TDU as a glorified trade union for instructors. If you're an instructor and you volunteer to sit on the TDU, are you doing it for purely altruistic reasons or are you doing it to benefit your career? Its hard to differentiate, but when i hear "money" and "TDU" in the same sentence i seriously question peoples motives...

nouse4aname

On that last point;

I've often heard a rumour that TDU members claim petrol expenses when they attend committee meetings. Is this just an old wives tale or is there any truth to it?

adrianshanahan

nouse4aname wrote: »

"I can't really comment on that (referring to the Training Centre). I'd like to see the course numbers myself but it could be due to factors outside the control of the GM''.

The Training Center is run by the office / GM nothing to do with the TDU what so ever, so the GM would be best to ask about how it's run / courses being run in it.

(For the record one of the Chairs of the technical commonalities who voted against the now famous motion was employed by the office/GM to run sessions out of the training center, not saying there is anything wrong with that just stating fat)

nouse4aname wrote: »

the TDU is just one small sub-committee of Canoeing Ireland. Up until recently, it happened to be a sub-committee which i had very little interest in.

The TDU is one of the larger groups who's chair sits on CI's board, in fact I'm almost sure that is the the second largest if the numbers I was told are correct.

nouse4aname wrote: »

My gripe with you on previous threads was that you stated you had "no problem" with financially rewarding TDU members for their work. Why should that be the case? Is their work any more valuable than what Michelle does as a volunteer for canoe polo? This is why certain folks in canoeing view the TDU as a glorified trade union for instructors.

Again just for clarity's sake the TDU is not a glorified trade union for commercial providers, and the general members are not financially rewarded for their work. If I was to do a straw poll I would guess that 90% + members of the TDU are non commercial providers.

I know nouse4aname you will just write off anything I say regarding the TDU because you assume I'm some sort of hardened paddle sport capitalist and only want to make money from paddle sport.

I like many members of the TDU have given our time to serving on technical committees, helping with our local clubs (personally I help where I can with KACC and have never once taken a cent in payment for doing anything for them) I am sure I am not the exception to the rule.

Like wise there are many members of the technical committees who have worked as instructors in the past. Nothing wrong with that either.


The way I see it paddle sport in Ireland is so small that many people are like myself, yes I am an instructor (therefore a member of the TDU) but I have also competed in many of the other disciplines over the year. (Surf, Marathon, Polo, Freestyle, not necessarily any use at any of them) the thing is we are all part of what makes up CI and all have played many differing roles.

This does not make one section or sun section more important than any of the others, if people continue to try point blame on one section say the TDU for pig irons sake all that will happen is a situation like we have currently people trying to endlessly prove a point they think is right and god dam no one else could have any valid points. This is happening on both side of the debate so please don't think I am singling any individual out.

Where do we go from here, well that is up the the membership as a whole.

One logical course of action is to hold the EGM as planned, re form the board. And then if the membership want they can re call a EGM via the correct channels and at that EGM propose motions that can change the entire structure of CI to something that might just work. What those motions are is a far more complex issue.


I do still think we as members of CI need to put to straight any lack of transparency in relation to the appointment of the GM. Again this is a more complex issue and nothing personally against the GM in person. I voted for Karl on to the executive and recognize his work carried out to date. But if we are ever going to break free from our recent history surely we should do this in as clear and transparent way possible?


It is not easy but if we all put behind our personal bias and emotions aside and discuss this in a reasoned and rational manor surely we can sort out the mess that CI is currently in and there will be a bright future for paddle sport in Ireland?

nouse4aname

adrianshanahan wrote: »

I know nouse4aname you will just write off anything I say regarding the TDU because you assume I'm some sort of hardened paddle sport capitalist and only want to make money from paddle sport.

Not at all! I don't know you and can only judge you on what you write here and on other forums.

seanieb

nouse4aname wrote: »

I've often heard a rumour that TDU members claim petrol expenses when they attend committee meetings. Is this just an old wives tale or is there any truth to it?

It is true. And what on earth would you have against a that?

This is common practice with NGO's. If someone was elected to the postion, surely they shouldn't have to pay out of their own pockets to do a the job. Maybe ye should just make sure everyone is from Dublin so as to save money.

nouse4aname

seanieb wrote: »

It is true. And what on earth would you have against a that?

This is common practice with NGO's. If someone was elected to the postion, surely they shouldn't have to pay out of their own pockets to do a the job. Maybe ye should just make sure everyone is from Dublin so as to save money.

Glad you asked! What i have against that, is to my knowledge all other committee members in Canoeing Ireland have not asked for a single red cent... I've spent my share of time and money sitting on technical committees and i never asked for anything in return.

I will repeat my earlier comment:

The TDU is just one sub-committee of Canoeing Ireland. Just like marathon, just like polo, just like slalom.

So what makes them so special????

And don't bother pulling the "West of Ireland" card Seanie! I can list plenty of members of technical committees who have traveled all over the country for meetings every month (sometimes twice or three times a month). All these people do it at their own expense because they volunteer to do a job. If they're not willing to make sacrifices, they don't put their hand up at the AGM.

What makes the TDU so special that their members can claim petrol expenses while other committee members are not entitled to such privilage??? I think its rich that members of the TDU so openly attack the board, especially when those same board members are volunteers who have jobs outside of canoeing and willingly give up both their time and money for the benefit of our sport.

If i ever meet the former chair of the TDU, i'll ask him one question; did he claim petrol expenses when he attended CI board meeting, because i doubt any of the others did...

And a message to all TDU members who feel like openly attacking board members; pay for your petrol like everyone else, then i might actually listen to you ranting at honest volunteers! This confirmation proves my point that members of the TDU cannot differentiate between voluntary work and their day jobs...

adrianshanahan

nouse4aname

I would be on fairly good information that it would be the norm ranter than exception for members of CI board and exec to claim expenses gained in filling their duties as board members. This is the case with the current board for certain.

As for how the TDU committee run their affairs, like any of the technical committees surely it is up to them to decide how they spend their budget be it covering travel costs of its committees members to meetings.

The same would apply to any of the technical committees and how their committees run their affairs. Much like it is up to the organisation committee of the liffey decent and how it's members claimed expenses?


Can I ask you to address the points I made above in previous post?

nouse4aname

adrianshanahan wrote: »

nouse4aname

I would be on fairly good information that it would be the norm ranter than exception for members of CI board and exec to claim expenses gained in filling their duties as board members. This is the case with the current board for certain.

Just to clarify, you're stating that all board members are currently claiming travel expenses for attending meetings? I've spoken to 3 (one former) who never claimed a single red cent. Two are not Dublin based. So you don't have it on fairly good information!

Is your "fairly good information" perhaps coming from the former TDU chair who WAS claiming petrol expenses? If so, i'd say thats not a very good source. "Ah sure they all do it!" never sounds morally convincing to me...

adrianshanahan wrote: »

As for how the TDU committee run their affairs, like any of the technical committees surely it is up to them to decide how they spend their budget be it covering travel costs of its committees members to meetings. The same would apply to any of the technical committees and how their committees run their affairs.

Where does the TDU's budget come from? And who holds the TDU accountable for its budget? I would think that any money would be better spent furthering the sport of canoeing rather than lining the pockets of its members... The marathon committee bring in significant money into their coffers each year from race levees. If they were lining their pockets with it, they would literally be linched at the AGM. But then again, ordinary honest paddlers can show up at the marathon AGM and have their say. The same cannot be said for TDU AGMs. So where is the transparency??? When the TDU budget is presented at the AGM, it is presented to a room full of instructors, all with the same professional agenda. Is that objective and transparent?

Once again, is it no wonder certain people view the TDU as a glorified trade union for instructors?

nouse4aname

adrianshanahan wrote: »

Can I ask you to address the points I made above in previous post?

In response to your previous post:

I actually thought it was very good. You made a clear and objective argument defending the TDU and you didn't attack anyone. You also had some good ideas about how we might move forward. I'd have to say i was half convinced by the argument you put forward...

But then Seanie confirmed that TDU members claim petrol expenses so now i'm back to square 1.

seanieb

nouse4aname wrote: »

Glad you asked! What i have against that, is to my knowledge all other committee members in Canoeing Ireland have not asked for a single red cent... I've spent my share of time and money sitting on technical committees and i never asked for anything in return.

I will repeat my earlier comment:

The TDU is just one sub-committee of Canoeing Ireland. Just like marathon, just like polo, just like slalom.

So what makes them so special????

And don't bother pulling the "West of Ireland" card Seanie! I can list plenty of members of technical committees who have traveled all over the country for meetings every month (sometimes twice or three times a month). All these people do it at their own expense because they volunteer to do a job. If they're not willing to make sacrifices, they don't put their hand up at the AGM.

What makes the TDU so special that their members can claim petrol expenses while other committee members are not entitled to such privilage??? I think its rich that members of the TDU so openly attack the board, especially when those same board members are volunteers who have jobs outside of canoeing and willingly give up both their time and money for the benefit of our sport.

If i ever meet the former chair of the TDU, i'll ask him one question; did he claim petrol expenses when he attended CI board meeting, because i doubt any of the others did...

And a message to all TDU members who feel like openly attacking board members; pay for your petrol like everyone else, then i might actually listen to you ranting at honest volunteers! This confirmation proves my point that members of the TDU cannot differentiate between voluntary work and their day jobs...

I'm quoting this as it's utterly ridiculous. Volunteering does not require the volunteer to donate their own money as well as their time. How can you even try equating petrol expenses to pay?

If other people don't claim petrol expenses, thats their prerogative. The ICU pays petrol expenses so people from all of the country can easily participate in the organisation, not just those that live in Dublin or those that can afford it.

Also, you pick a really funny expenditure to get all uptight about. You should take a look at the books when the ICU had nearly a million in turnover.

PS. Other technical committees have alos claimed expenses in the past 10 years (including taxis for committee members form Dublin). So I dont know why you are pointing the finger at the TDU.

Zuppy

seanieb wrote: »

It is true. And what on earth would you have against a that?

This is common practice with NGO's. If someone was elected to the postion, surely they shouldn't have to pay out of their own pockets to do a the job. Maybe ye should just make sure everyone is from Dublin so as to save money.

While I agree that someone should not be out of pocket for volunteering their services and that Petrol money seems like a fair way of doing it, especially when a lot of committees hold their meetings in Dublin and it makes no sense to drag 80% of a committee large distances to Cork or Galway/Sligo.

I have to disagree that this is common practice with NGB's and I can speak for at least two other sports in this respect. It is most definitly not common practice anomgst sporting bodies or social groups I have been a part of.

Also I am certain that some of the technical committees should introduce this to promote more regional representation. Should funds be available to use like this. Maybe the TDU could spare some more cash.

If the TDU budget stretches to this and the facility is available to all sub committees, I see no problem. If this funding is taken from other projects and this has been ok'ed then I see no problem for the TDU to account for this at their AGM, as we can see, the TDU cannot fill it's positions so either its incentive hasn't worked or it needs to come up with more.

It does seem odd! But then if they were going to pay my petrol to all the meetings, I might join them. The cost if too many members of the committee came from far afield might prove a bit high.

nouse4aname

seanieb wrote: »

I dont know why you are pointing the finger at the TDU.

I think i explained very clearly why i'm pointing the finger at the TDU. Because this is not common practice on other technical committees in Canoeing Ireland. So what makes the TDU so special???

I am disappointed that it goes on and i genuinely thought it was just an urban myth.

PS- Justifying it be saying "sure look at all the crap that went on before" is poor. What went on with the old crowd was a disgrace but it doesn't make this any more morally justifiable...