Apparent discontent with SOME members of CI board with TDU

Irish Kayaking and Canoeing discussion forum.

Moderators:Seanie, EoinH

Post Reply
Adrians
Posts:212
Joined:Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:22 pm
Apparent discontent with SOME members of CI board with TDU

Post by Adrians » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:16 pm

Most people who will see this post are well aware of the recent events in CI.

From reading post here on IWW and on Boards.ie combined with speaking to some of the current board members (Chairs of their respective technical committees) combined with some reading between the lines I am fairly certain there is massive friction between SOME members of CI's board and the position the TDU hold on the board and remit of the TDI.

Before I go further I would like to clarify that I do not mean there entire board of CI and I don not necessarily mean the members of CI board I have spoken with.

Out of the many issues that lead to the former presidents resignation it would appear to me that there are some people who are not happy with the fact the TDU sit on CI's board and are massively un happy with the TDU having any say in the development & deployment of the new Coaching Syllabus.

To clarify for those who might not be aware there is a difference between the current L1- L5 instructor system and the Coaching Syllabus for the technical disciplines like Freestyle / Sprint etc.

I am lead to believe that this feeling of discontent is so strong that among other reasons this is one reason why some members of the board block voted against the former president on the night he stepped down. Think of it as an act of civil disobedience.

Now I do think there is scope for a healthy debate in what the TDU's / technical committees role should be in the development and roll out of the Coaching Syllabus should be.

This is just speculation by me but I would love to here from anyone who has any views on this what so ever.



* Before any potential upset of CI board members please note I said SOME not all board members. Also to save you google for my contact details you can get me Adrian Shanahan via email [email protected] or call me 087 3 545 042

seanmc
Posts:16
Joined:Mon May 12, 2008 10:37 am
Location:H2O
Contact:

Re: Apparent discontent with SOME members of CI board with T

Post by seanmc » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:20 pm

Adrian, have you spoken to any of the board members who voted against the motion to find out why they voted how they did?

Has it crossed your(or anyone else's) mind that the board might actually be right on this occasion and the former President and exec are wrong?

talkin sense
Posts:7
Joined:Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: Apparent discontent with SOME members of CI board with T

Post by talkin sense » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:41 pm

Adrian,

You must really leave your brains in the boat when you get out of it. Your previous accusations of corruption got a whole thread on boards.ie taken down for possible defamation and even Seanie took down your previous posts for similar reasons.

Don't you get it? You cannot accuse SOME people of corruption without accusing them all. ! The stain of the accusation still rests will all that you have accused. Just exactly how are people to know who you have spoken to and who you are still accusing. Have you spoken to the Irish Sports Council and the Irish Olympic Council? Are you still accusing them?

If you are so concerned why don't you name those people who in your view are OK and those who still believe to be guilty of corruption?

Grow some balls - name names and watch the summonses to appear in court for defamation falling through your letterbox.

Seanie - if you felt his last post was potentially defamatory then by any stretch of the imagination you have to delete this one as well!

Adrians
Posts:212
Joined:Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:22 pm

Re: Apparent discontent with SOME members of CI board with T

Post by Adrians » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 pm

seanmc wrote:Adrian, have you spoken to any of the board members who voted against the motion to find out why they voted how they did?
Hi Sean,

I have spoken to people who have voted both for and against the motion n question. I have an extend phone call with one board member who was articulate and open with why he voted the way he did. Another I exchange emails with and I am waiting to get his full reply to my question, he said he would get back to me in a couple of days and I have no reason to doubt this. Finialy I was in contact with another person who voted against the motion who was a little less articulate and gave an almost rehearsed answer and the they 'just voted with the rest of the technical committees'

Only this morning I spoke at length with someone who voted in favor of the motion and his account of events matched up with those who voted no but it included some omissions of events and actions leading up to the who situation.

- I have no issue with the GM personally, I do have issue with how the GM role was created and then appointed. How this was done is a matter of public record at this stage and I can't believe that people think this is a great way to do business. This is compounded by how previous CI boards and CEO acted, we surely should be striving to be as transparent as possible. ( It was put to me by one of the people who voted against the now ex president that he agreed the GM was not appointed in the best way possible but we should just accept it and move on)

- In my eyes the issue of the TDU and some sections of CI board is a separate one to the GM and it should be treated as such. The issue of CI, TDU, Executive Committees and the coaching syllabus is a complex one and deserves a thread of it's own. I couldn't hope to address the pros and cons on both sides in a simple post reply, and I'm not as informed as I would like to be.

- The situation that we have now and how some parties felt they had no choice but to step down how others think we are better off without them should not have been allow to develop how it has. I don't think I am going to far in saying that CI is currently a mess, there are great people going work in certain areas that goes unrecognized. We need a total change of structure of CI's management, perhaps one where neither the TDU or the Technical committees sit on the board.
seanmc wrote:Has it crossed your(or anyone else's) mind that the board might actually be right on this occasion and the former President and exec are wrong?
It has Sean and I am doing my best to talk to as many people involved to make as an informed decision as possible

@talkin sense

I will happily publish the names of those I have spoken to once I get their permission to do so. I would also ask you to re read my post starting this thread and point out to me where I accuse anyone of being corrupt.

In reply to you calling for Seanie to delete my post I say you could be barking up the wrong tree there, the post you refereed to was not against the IWW TOS.


I believe there are good people on all sides of the different debates, there are also a number of different courses of actions we can take to sort of the mess and achieve a common goal, I assume we are all on side with we all want what is best for paddle sports both competitive and recreational?

One way to achieve this is through level headed, open and articulate debate with no name calling and reach a course of action we can all be happy with?

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: Apparent discontent with SOME members of CI board with T

Post by Seanie » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:08 pm

Welcome to the discussion "talkin sense". I assume you are the anonymous user that goes by the same name from Boards.ie?
talkin sense on Boards.ie wrote: ...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?
This post makes me even happier you're here :D

One or two things first:
talkin sense wrote:You must really leave your brains in the boat when you get out of it.
We could do without the personal insults, for brevity's sake. There's already enough to read.
talkin sense wrote:Seanie - if you felt his last post was potentially defamatory then by any stretch of the imagination you have to delete this one as well!
I must not have that great an imagination. But in all seriousness what part are you referring to? (please either PM me or post the exact parts of it that are defamatory).

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Adrians post that got the boards.ie thread taken down. And for the record, I edited Adrians post as the result of a complaint about another post which might have been defamatory to some members of the ICU board. Adrian had already spoken to some of the people involved previously and the issue was resolved.

Over the last few weeks and over the years I've been threatened with solicitors or legal action simply to have some sort of chilling effect on the discussion. If you don't like what you are reading, it doesn't automatically mean it's defamatory.

Anyway, thanks for your post it's good to hear from a number of viewpoints.

best,
Seanie

Post Reply