Without going into any debate here, can someone please break down the problems that Caneoing Ireland are currenlty going through. I, and many others, are not entirly in the loop with CI and its breakdown. I am writing this post as I find many Threads seem to point names and refer to confersations/meetings that I simply have no idea what it is about as I have been disconected from CI for a few years and just got on with kayaking and canoeing on my own terms.
As a long time kayaker and coach, I hope to get involved more in the debate but need to know the facts first.
Can someone please explain it in simple terms for all to see
Canoeing Ireland 101
Re: Canoeing Ireland 101
OK, don't all rush to answer :-p In the absence of other more neutral voices, I'll try to answer.
Unlike two years ago CI as an entity doesn't have any actually material problems right now. It has a functioning board, money and no significant legal issues (that I'm aware of).
To understand what happened its important to know how the CI / ICU works.
The Staff, are made up of training and development officers, secretaries etc. But the important staff member is the CEO (now the GM). The CEO attends Board meetings and executive meetings. The CEO/GM is responsible for carrying out the wishes of the boards, but also informing the boards about what the best course of action is, and carrying out the day to day business of the ICU as in their executive capacity (ie. make their own decisions, independent of the board)
So there, you have it there's the Political side of the ICU and the Staff/Company, and the CEO acts as a go between. It's complex.
Some more details on the Structure of the ICU from the ICU website:
http://canoe.ie/Information/AbouttheCan ... fault.aspx
An ICU committee member posted a concise outline of what occurred at that meeting in a post on Boards.ie:
After talking to a lot of people I think that every single person elected to the ICU board, including those that resigned, were working towards what they believed was a better organization. However, I think the structure of the ICU makes this a difficult task.
Unlike two years ago CI as an entity doesn't have any actually material problems right now. It has a functioning board, money and no significant legal issues (that I'm aware of).
To understand what happened its important to know how the CI / ICU works.
- The Management Board
- The Executive Board
- The Staff - Including the CEO
The Staff, are made up of training and development officers, secretaries etc. But the important staff member is the CEO (now the GM). The CEO attends Board meetings and executive meetings. The CEO/GM is responsible for carrying out the wishes of the boards, but also informing the boards about what the best course of action is, and carrying out the day to day business of the ICU as in their executive capacity (ie. make their own decisions, independent of the board)
So there, you have it there's the Political side of the ICU and the Staff/Company, and the CEO acts as a go between. It's complex.
- Management Board ( 12+ people): Month to month
- Executive Board ( 5 people) : week to week
- CEO/GM (1): Day to day
Some more details on the Structure of the ICU from the ICU website:
http://canoe.ie/Information/AbouttheCan ... fault.aspx
An ICU committee member posted a concise outline of what occurred at that meeting in a post on Boards.ie:
However, I don't believe that the problem is isolated to this specific issue. I believe it came to a head at this point. The wider problems, problems that you have heard about are largely opinions on how things are run and should be run, and what should be priorities for the organization. This is exacerbated by complexity due to the diverse all encompassing nature of what CI is, and this is reflected in how the CI/ICU board and executive is made up.Paddle Hard wrote:... The motion which led to the resignation of the Executive and certain Board members had nothing to do with how the GM position came about, whether or not it's creation should be reviewed, whether or not the process was flawed or transparent or fair or any of the other descriptions which have been used in earlier threads.
The board were asked to support a motion put forward by the President and supported by the Executive. When repeatedly asked why the motion should be supported absoloutely no solid information was provided. Board members were asked in effect to vote blindly. Several Board members asked for clarification as to why the exec felt so strongly about their position they did not put forward any supporting argument. This left a number of Board members unable to support the motion. It fell, the Executive resigned.
Board Member.
After talking to a lot of people I think that every single person elected to the ICU board, including those that resigned, were working towards what they believed was a better organization. However, I think the structure of the ICU makes this a difficult task.
Re: Canoeing Ireland 101
What Seanie has presented is a fair representation of what Canoeing ireland is. And correctly in his statement:
So the bigger issue is that the structure of the organisation is not fit for purpose, part of this is over how the organsiation has evolved but probably more so how the sport has evolved without the organisations necessarily evolving / changing to meet these innovations. This is also compounded by the organisation presently not having a vision of what it wants to be or where it is going either in the short term or long term.
These problems are exacerabated by the fact that the organisation needs to change, however change is unsettling for many and will or should require a restructuring of the organisation. This however, will require that many (or all!) who have representation on the board at present may no longer have representation in a restructured organisation. Hence this is perceived as a threat by some, and such changes will be and have been resisted. What is probablay most frustrating is that nearly all on board want the same thing, to grow the sport /or their discipline of it.
This raises the issue of the paddling community. Many have the view
The upcoming ADM / EGM is an opportunity to commence this change, this may be by submitting a motion to change the structure of the organisation, a motion for the adoption of a piece / plan of work which may have a time window, a motion for a change to the articles and memos of the organisation, adoption of particular policies, etc.
So to answer paddle's question, the simple answer is that the organisation has not evolved or progressed as fast as the sport has evolved and diversified into different areas (education {FETAC / JCPE / FAS}, EPP, Environment and access, coaching, doping policies, OCI selection, child protection, touring, trails, NQAI, etc. which were never envisioned,) but more importantly the organisation does not have a plan or vision of what it is or will be for paddlesports in the future.
In terms of declaring an interest or a bias, yes I was a board member and for another 4 weeks I am chair of the TDU.
Geo
However, I don't believe that the problem is isolated to this specific issue. I believe it came to a head at this point.
So the bigger issue is that the structure of the organisation is not fit for purpose, part of this is over how the organsiation has evolved but probably more so how the sport has evolved without the organisations necessarily evolving / changing to meet these innovations. This is also compounded by the organisation presently not having a vision of what it wants to be or where it is going either in the short term or long term.
These problems are exacerabated by the fact that the organisation needs to change, however change is unsettling for many and will or should require a restructuring of the organisation. This however, will require that many (or all!) who have representation on the board at present may no longer have representation in a restructured organisation. Hence this is perceived as a threat by some, and such changes will be and have been resisted. What is probablay most frustrating is that nearly all on board want the same thing, to grow the sport /or their discipline of it.
This raises the issue of the paddling community. Many have the view
If the organisation does not do what you want it to do then get it changed. It may be changed by submitting motions at ADMS, electing candidates who want to bring about change, etc. Within the current structure this requires candidate who can look at a bigger picture, and at discipline level again those who aren't threatened by change or can look beyond their discpline. Ultimately a larger organisation with the right vision for the future will benefit all.Why should I join or renew my membership, it does nothing for me?
The upcoming ADM / EGM is an opportunity to commence this change, this may be by submitting a motion to change the structure of the organisation, a motion for the adoption of a piece / plan of work which may have a time window, a motion for a change to the articles and memos of the organisation, adoption of particular policies, etc.
So to answer paddle's question, the simple answer is that the organisation has not evolved or progressed as fast as the sport has evolved and diversified into different areas (education {FETAC / JCPE / FAS}, EPP, Environment and access, coaching, doping policies, OCI selection, child protection, touring, trails, NQAI, etc. which were never envisioned,) but more importantly the organisation does not have a plan or vision of what it is or will be for paddlesports in the future.
In terms of declaring an interest or a bias, yes I was a board member and for another 4 weeks I am chair of the TDU.
Geo