Canoeing Ireland - An analysis by Mark Clinton

adrianshanahan

I know this is posted on IWW but I think it's worth while giving it a thread of it's own thread and try generate some quality focused debate, thoughts and ideas on his suggest restructure.

For those who don;t know Mark Clinton was a member of the ex board of CI and was voted in at an AGM.

This was sent to all clubs in recent days, from what it is worth in having read this and done a fair amount of research I would say that's Mark's account is a fair and true of what has happened to date.

Dear Club Secretary,

As the situation develops in Canoeing Ireland I am mindful of the absence of any direct communication
between the Board or General Manager of Canoeing Ireland and the affiliated clubs and as a result
I feel having been directly elected to the board and Executive in November 2011 the least I should do is
explain to those who elected me why I resigned on December 12th last.

Kind Regards.

Mark Clinton

There is more information to be read here by the Irish Sports Council and their suggest structure for NGB's. I believe bring us in line with ISC guidelines and a restructured board CI will be better equipped to serve all it's members and be far more accountable than it currently is.

APPENDIX 1
Motion 1. That the membership resolves to replace paragraph 4 8 o f t h e M e m o & A r ti c l e s o f t h e I r i s h Canoe Union with the following paragraph with immed iate effect.
Unless otherwise determined by ordinary resolution at an Annual Delegate Meeting , the union’s board of management shall consist of the Executive and the following elected members.
Dublin Rep Leinster Rep Munster Rep Connaught \ Ulster Rep Olympic High Performance Rep Non-Olympic High Performance Rep Recreational Sport Rep.
It further resolves that hereafter all board members will serve for a period of two years and that each member will become a director of the company. The board will nominate from within its members a Child Protection Officer and an Access & Environment Officer .

NOTE: The President at the first meeting of the board will appoint a Secretary, Treasurer Child Protection Officer and Access & Environment Officer the remaining elected officers would then be allocated specific roles such as Corporate Governance reform, Strategic Planning, Club Development. The High Performance Rep could be allocated the task in addition to the Olympic brief the development of competitive sport throughout the club structure. The Recreational Sport Rep could be tasked with coordinating a national canoe trails policy and the No- Olympic High Performance Rep could be tasked with guiding a completely new coaching initiative. All board members will serve a minimum term of two years and be directors of the company. The President will arrange a board rotation system that will eventually arrive at a situation where at least 25% of its membership is changed at every ADM thus ensuring continuity of corporate memory. The principle here is that all board members will have a role on which they can plan and report to the board on. This ensures that the board is completely accountable and focused on building an effective and successful organisation.

That would be a proposed motion to restructure CI.

I know these kinda debates people are often inclined not to speak up / post their ideas on the topic as they feel they aren't 'around long enough' or not really bothered what CI does, I would urge everyone to have your voice heard here. As by the time the 9th of March comes it will be too late to give new suggestions.

Yes CI is currently broken but we can take this as a chance to fix it restructuring it to be an organisation that serves everyone better and encourages others to take up paddle sports of all disciplines.


Adrian

Grudaire

That makes very depressing reading really - cyclegal on the forum here explained the position from of the remaining board to me via PM.

Really I don't know who to believe, and as such I have stopped really caring about it all.


I don't think everyone involved knows how much damage this fiasco is doing to the sport in Ireland. Has everyone managed to lose sight of what is actually important?

adrianshanahan

Cliste wrote: »

That makes very depressing reading really - cyclegal on the forum here explained the position from of the remaining board to me via PM.

I have spoken with almost all the board both Exec and appointed members. I would say that Mark's synopsis is truthful and accurate account of what happened.

I have also spoke for a number of hours with Karl ( CI GM) about this and regardless of what brought us to this situation it is now up to us the members of CI to decide where we want our organization to go from here.

I would be interest to hear what people thing of Mark's ideas to restructure CI to bring it inside the reconciliations of the ISC and have correct corporate governance.

What do the wider public this of this idea or have you any other suggestions?

Adrian

Zuppy

Ok, a few thoughts on what you have posted! More musings than concrete ideas.


While I have no doubt certain people believed they had no choice but to resign, I find it difficult to fathom why someone turns up at a board metting to fire any strategic employee without putting forward a reason?!?! Not that I disbelieve that there were legal implications but by not informing the board, it was as good as having no reason.

My personal opinion in this matter is that we need to reform the exec before changing the union's make up. It would cause too much confusion and threaten the future of canoeing to re-elect an exec, disband a board (that seems to have functioned very well), restructure the office, rewrite our articles and voting practices ALL AT ONCE?

Apart from that, with direct elections at an ADM, how will you enforce regional representation? Or would positions be allocated by weight of numbers? Would this meeting be held centrally at a time convient for the majority without clashing with any of the calendars? Too many unknowns to comment on such a proposal and who would interpret this? You are in the middle of a restructure at the same time! The motions would be too numerous and unworkable without proper consultation with the members.

Also what would happen to programs currently in progress or running? Will they be suspended while we reorganise?

I am a novice when it comes to CI politics but why should the TDU become the rep for recreational canoeing? When only instructors can join? Would the clubs not be better (as in every other organisation)? So lets revert the TDU to a standards body and remove them as a voting member of the board, give them observer status and give the clubs another rep. This would do a huge amount for recreational canoeing. Two club members and the access officer (defacto rec paddler) is more representive.

Also since we have no High performance units (HPDU), which is a MASSIVE deficit in my opinion for ANY sporting organisation, lets set one up and give them the same status as the TDU (observe). Instructors and High performance athletes are low in numbers and they should be task and project orientated, let them be directed from the board.

And why have a recreational rep on a new style board when you have provincial reps? And have them all resigning or reelecting at the same time? I like that fact that the current board and exec change at different times, it allows for a lead in time for new members to get up to speed (and mentoring).

The board is democratically elected and turns over faster than the exec, I would initially maintain this and add an alternative rep covering 'canoeing for all' (disability, open canoe, canoe sailing, dragonboat, NOT recreational canoeing). Later in a year or two, when CI has had time to research and study a reorganisation, then lets revisit this.


TBH My vote will be that the clubs take more interest and with the technical committees we get more bums on seats and start paddling. Less of not talking to each other and more sense please!

adrianshanahan

Zuppy,

I am going to do my best to reply to your post, I don't like to multi quote / take post apart but it will help direct my answer better. Please don;t see this as having a go or anything.

Zuppy wrote: »

While I have no doubt certain people believed they had no choice but to resign, I find it difficult to fathom why someone turns up at a board meeting to fire any strategic employee without putting forward a reason?!?! Not that I disbelieve that there were legal implications but by not informing the board, it was as good as having no reason.
!

You have to first understand that it was a motion re ratifying the GM's position after the 9 month trial period which was due. It's not as if it was let's fire this guy kinda thing. While you might not believe in the legal implications you have to understand that the exec board would be privy to far more of the day to day goings on re the GM. At time of ratifying the GM's line manager aka the President (the person who would work with the GM most) felt it wasn't working out and decided not to ratify his position. After the motion was defeated those who voted in favor of it positions were no unattainable and had to resign.

The thing is the GM's role is no ratified and being a believer in the democratic process I believe that it is up to us to work with Karl. I have met with Karl very recently and doing what I can to help CI.

Zuppy wrote: »

.

The board is democratically elected and turns over faster than the exec,

To correct you there the non exec board is not democratically elected, they are appointed by their sub committees. It is a subtle but important difference. They are not accountable under company law ( CI is a company) and not so in the mems and articles.

I know Mark's point in giving his anylasis was to generate discussion/ debate and encourage the clubs to take a greater interest in how CI is run.

Regarding the restructure of the board, it is not a complex change to the mems and articles, doing as Mark suggest would being us in line with what the ISC suggest is the structure for an NGB. This is better for all members competitive and recreational.

I'll stop there and hope others give their views on how we can progress CI from here.

Adrian

Zuppy

You can have a go at my personal posts all you like. :-)

Nope, I am afraid you are wrong. The technical committee chairs are all voted in and all at AGM's open to paddlers no matter what level or division they paddle at. Hence democratic. The TDU is the same. With the exception your an instructor or trainee.

As for following the ISC, well that is a guideline that we could aspire to, but how many sports in Ireland are as diverse as paddling? And what structure do they use? I am all for change and betterment but in this case I would like to right the ship before we all change seat. (Nice mixed metaphor there).

adrianshanahan

Zuppy they are not democratically elected to the board, they are elected to the chair of their sub committee and then appointed to the board.

Zuppy

adrianshanahan wrote: »

Zuppy they are not democratically elected to the board, they are elected to the chair of their sub committee and then appointed to the board.

Elected is the word then. :-)

I am only asking but as far as I remember not all the exec is elected. So maybe change my previous thought to we should elect ALL of the exec. The board are elected by their various bodies and I really believe the clubs should elect two members as they are the majority of the member and would represent us recreational paddlers better.

Don't misunderstand, I do think we should look at ways to better the CI structure like you and the poster of the document but we should do it in a measured way and fully informed.

cyclegal

Finally we have the appropriate arena for this, a motion at the ADM...this proposal has always been on the executive's agenda, the ex-president's letter seeking support for his campaign was a good indication of things to come. There was a plan and they stuck rigidly to it...first the exclusion of the discipline representatives from the strategic planning workshops. When that failed, we had the infamous meeting and subsequent resignations. Now, finally the membership will have their say and hopefully whatever way they vote, this thing can be put to bed...it's beginning to feel like the Nice Treaty.

adrianshanahan

cyclegal wrote: »

Finally we have the appropriate arena for this, a motion at the ADM...

cyclegal,

The ADM will be a good time to gauge the feelings of the membership, however ADM / AGM's are not great places for discussions but more so for agreeing on things.

I would encourage people to use places like boards.ie and IWW to talk things out before the ADM or the deadline for motions for the ADM.

It always happens where people say nothing before AGM's and then disappointed when they don;t really get to contribute motions etc at the AGM.