UCD Canoe Club
Committee Announcements => Announcements => Topic started by: Fuzzy on February 17, 2006, 16:01:11
-
Anybody who is a fully paid up member of the canoe club is allowed to come along and vote. We will meet at 7:30 at the message board to find the room that services have given us.
Main changes that are happening
Reformatting of the entire document so that it is easier to read and a lot clearer . Some items were in the wrong sections and have been moved, and also the numbering system has been made more uniform.
Merging of the safety officer and the training officer into one role; the safety and training officer.
Creation of the new job of outings officer.
Outings officer takes on some of the roles of the secetary allowing the introduction of the fundraising clause in the secretary's task description. Also secretary's role is given a more admininstrative focus with an obligation to ensure the next years committee receives a full set of records.
Links to the documents are as follows:
prosed new constitution (http://www.ucd.ie/canoe/PCA2006.pdf)
current constitution (http://www.ucd.ie/canoe/UCDCC_Constitution_Current.pdf)
These changes are being introduced to ensure that each committee knows what has been done in the past so that we can continue to improve the service that we offer to members.
-
You're gonna merge me and Dave???
Interesting... :sex: :icescream:
-
outings officer, eh? yeah, there hasn't been enough of that.
>>Rob Vambeck is gay<<
-
outings officer??? taking a leaf out of trinity's book eh??? ;)
Sounds like a fun job :D
-
Hi guys,
There's obviously been a lot of work done to get it to this point: well done to all involved. I have a couple of points/suggestions for disucssion:
- remove or update the "valid from" date at the beginning;
- the ammendments to the old constitution should be clearly marked - otherwise this is a vote on a brand new constitution;
- I think the canoe club "year" needs to be defined - possibly in Section 3; this is because the term of Captain is said to run for one year.
- throughout the document there is ambiguity on the voting process:
At such meetings any member of the committee, may be dismissed provided that a two thirds majority of members present are voting in favour of such a dismissal. However for Captain and Senior Treasurer a three quarter majority must be present.
Does this mean that only 2/3rds (66%) of those present can dismiss a committee member (eg 4 out of the 6 people that happened to turn up) whilst it requires 3/4 of the club to be present and a simple majority (51%) to remove a captain. This needs to be clarified.
- Section 4.10: I think that this section needs to be changed and expanded. It should state that all club canoeing events are required to be run in accordance with the Code of Practice. This then requires adoption of the Code of Practice for future years. Further, changes to the Code of Practice should be made by a nominated committee of (say) 5 people of at least 1 Level 4 and 2 Level 3 instructors; the remaining members are at the descretion of the committee. Something along those lines anyway.
I don't think that only the committee should be subject to the disclaimer - possibly all members of the club? What about the college? Of course this bring sup the unmentionable topic, but maybe it needs to be clarified once and for all int he Constitution?? I think we should get Cormac's opinion on this area if he would be so good?
- Section 4.8: rename as: New Member and Children Officer. There is no need for liaison, for how else is the job to be done?
- Section 4.9: The position of Graduate Liaison Officer is mentioned. if this is to be position it needs to have its job properly defined. Even if it is later stated that the Senior Treasurer and GLO are to be the same person, the jobs needd to be defined seperately.
- Removal of the Senior Treasurer: is this covered by the usual committee rules event though the ST isn't a committee member (for there is only 8 positions as defined in Section 4.0)?? Needs to be clarified.
[/list]
That's it for the moment! If I see any more I'll post. The adoption of a new constitution is not a small thing so everyone should have their say and propose ammendments. If more time until the EGM is required, so be it.
-
Just one statement, why are we keeping an eight person committee, in fairness it makes meetings difficult and two positions in particular, NML and PRO, I view these functions are covered by all the committee. This is not to say that there have been some very fine people in these postions but their jobs should be done by all the committee. I will read this more carefully before I make anymore comments.
-
NML and PRO, I view these functions are covered by all the committee. This is not to say that there have been some very fine people in these postions
Damn straight....holly, meabh, phil and ........MOI!!!
sounds good fuzzy
lolx
-
good points colin. Tom I told you there is more work needed on it. I think you are rushing this too much
-
- Section 4.10: I think that this section needs to be changed and expanded. It should state that all club canoeing events are required to be run in accordance with the Code of Practice. This then requires adoption of the Code of Practice for future years. Further, changes to the Code of Practice should be made by a nominated committee of (say) 5 people of at least 1 Level 4 and 2 Level 3 instructors; the remaining members are at the descretion of the committee. Something along those lines anyway.
This kind of thing should not be in the constitution as it is inflexible and could lead to issues of liability in the event of an accident.
-
I don't know if this is really an issue that needs to included in the constitution but it is something i think needs a little bit of clarification.
I think it needs to be a little bit clearer exactly who pays for club trips and what they pay.
For example if you are using club gear but going in a private car, do you pay a full tenner for the trip? And if so do you have to pay petrol money on top of this to your driver?
Using a bit of an example Maria who started paddling this year has her own car but is reliant on club boats and rescue.. She was never charged for club trips until last saturday when she was. Now she doesn't mind at all paying the money and infact feels she should have been paying more before now as she was using the club gear but the point is there is no standard to go by.
Also (and I don't know if this is happening this year) from my experience people can come, throw all their gear on the club trailer, or use some club gear and then get in a private car. Then since they aren't on the bus they may end up not paying anything to the club who have to pay for the bus and instructors.
Now I'm really not trying to stir a huge arguement and I know a lot of people this year have taken up the €50 all trips till year end offer so its probably not even an issue till next year. But as more and more freshers get cars but not roofracks the issue of using club gear and trailer space but not actually going on the bus will become more relevant.
I think everyone would benefit from a clear policy on this.
I would propose something along the lines of...
Everyone who uses ANY club gear (including putting their private boat on the club trailer) pays half fees to the club. This leaves the other half free for petrol money to private drivers on longer trips. The drivers can then take club boats if needed. This means everyone will end up paying the same amount and by my reckoning the club will take it the same if not more for Saturday trips, which seems fairer all round :D :D
wow, think this is the longest post i've ever made! (apologys if you all think its too long and a bullshit issue) i just got to thinking about it when maria mentioned only being charged for the first time yesterday and think it is worth having a clear policy on charging for trips.
Claire
-
My first year in the club, when I actually paddled occasionally, i think it was set at:
€10: for bus and gear
€10: for gear and lift in private car
Free: for gear and driver of private car (no roofracks)
Got petrol money: if you drove private car with roofracks.
I don't know what it cost if you had your own gear and didn't take the bus, that seemed to be alot less common back then.
Thats how it was explained to me 3 years ago, but that could have been wrong even back then.
-
Good point Claire! think thats definitely something that was never made clear altho i went with the 50 quid option thing whicg was also a really good idea... and also those of us (ahem.. me) who dont quite make it to all the trips are loosing money if we dont turn up so it kinda encourages u to turn up cos u know uve paid! does that make sense???
-
but does that sort of thing need to be in the Constitution? couldn't it just be a rule or something?
Also, we can't make any official mention of petrol money. As anyone who has ever travelled with me will know, I have quite a firm policy of ixnay on the etrolpay until we reach the destination - in the event of an accident, as is my understanding of it, drivers who have negotiated payment of petrol money with their passengers are technically charging the passengers for transport and there's complications there... they're operating as an unlicensed taxi or they're liable for their passengers' safety or something. don't know the details but I've always been advised against any straight-up negotiation of petrol money terms.
-
hey guys, thanks for all the feedback if anyone has any suggestions do talk to one of the committee....in particular fergal or tom as they were very involved in the new const.
i agree with donnie that that paragraph re. code of good practice is too restrictive, club trips are run in accordance with the code, thats the whole pt. of having it, don't think there should be procedure's like that set in stone, they're more things that committee's decide
A constitution is supposed to be a relatively unchanging document, obviously there should be the possibility of ammendments but that doesn't happen every few weeks, claire's point is very valid but probably just a rule that should be clarified rather than put in the const, our take on it was that anyone who needed boat, gear, bus space, trailer space OR rescue should be paying for club trips...so the only people who didn't have to pay were rescue drivers with all their own gear or their rescue passengers with all their own gear, and they can sort out their own petrol issues. obviously as i'm sure you guys can appreciate its easy to miss one or two, especially when ppl are going in private cars, but we'd more than welcome anyone who feels they want to pay etc. Also anyone who is a driver with all their own gear etc but feels they are benefiting from coming out with the club and being a member and wants to help support the club is also welcome to pay!
To kieran re the 8 members, we felt that having 8 members on the committee was a benefit, ucdcc is a very big and very active club, 1 less would not make any significant(?) differance to meetings but it does make quite a difference in the workload that people have to shoulder so we didn't want to reduce the committee below 8, also nml and pro do provide important roles and pro in particular while maybe not specific enough in the previous constitution actually is quite an important job in the new constitution with a more specific list of what they have to do.
Keep the advice coming, it can be quite difficult to see the flaws when your working on something so the outside input really helps!
-
Since I was the poor schlub with the pen & paper on saturday, I was the one getting money while tome and phil tied up the trailer. Just to say I was asked to collect money off everyone. Maria did point out that she was a driver, we had "words" after I had told her to take it up with tom. Afterwords I went to tom and suggested to him to give Maria back her money on the grounds that she was driving and bringing boats. Firstly sorry Maria if getting the sharp end of my tongue upset you, secondly this is something we need to sort out as has been pointed out more people with cars no roof racks means less people on the bus, but still gear on the bus for them. On saturday I used a club boat gave five euro to tom and five to my driver. On the issue of petrol money it is not like a taxi as you don't agree you just offer it to help cover the costs of journey not to line the pockets of your driver.
My own suggestion is this if you are getting a lift in a car using private gear, just pay your driver. If you are using club gear but it is going on the car pay the club a fiver and the driver for petrol. If travelling in a car with no roof rack pay the club a tenner and the driver should be reimbursed from the club.
-
in the event of an accident, as is my understanding of it, drivers who have negotiated payment of petrol money with their passengers are technically charging the passengers for transport and there's complications there... they're operating as an unlicensed taxi or they're liable for their passengers' safety or something.
As long as you don't make a profit i.e. total money received does not add up to more than the cost of petrol, ware and tare etc its ok.
-
i agree with donnie that that paragraph re. code of good practice is too restrictive, club trips are run in accordance with the code, thats the whole pt. of having it, don't think there should be procedure's like that set in stone, they're more things that committee's decide
Meabh, I'm not sure you understood my point. I am saying that it should be written into the constitution that:
1. The Code of Practice be adopted for all club trips
2. The CoP can only be changed by a suitable committee of people.
This kind of thing should not be in the constitution as it is inflexible and could lead to issues of liability in the event of an accident.
Thanks for your more knowedgeable reply Donnie. I don't see how my suggestion renders people more liable than they currently stand - can you explain this? Is it the committee that draughts it that are more liable? If so, then the author of the CoP is liable as it stands? Regarding the "inflexibility" - the CoP can be changed outside an EGM, but surely it should only be changed by appropriate people - I'm suggesting that the constitution defines these types of people. If it's not a viable change then that's cool (obviously), I just want to understand more about it.
I know these are poxy issues and maybe need to be sorted out by those who know the law, insurance and the ICU, away from a public forum. I don't think we should avoid it just because it is poxy though. It does need to be sorted.
Claire/Maria/Asho/Kmck -
You guys have obviously hit on something that needs to be sorted. Maybe it needs a post of its own so that the issues of constution and trip payments are not mixed up in people's minds. As the proposal stands, the constitution is quite clear on payments: the committee decide!
-
Keep the advice coming, it can be quite difficult to see the flaws when your working on something so the outside input really helps!
Totally understand - I've been there a bunch of times. I hope you don't mind the discussion etc, it really is meant in a constructive way. As I said it obviously took a lot of work to get it where it is - well done! See, the problem you guys face is that you have so many people who are mad keen on the club!!
-
the issue of petrol money is not something for the constituition . . . . its a ruling thats available for change at the discretion of the committee from year to year. clarification will soon follow . . . . . .
would people be aware that that this proposed change is a massive improvement an the old, and that the overall change is a very positive one. people can get carried away and keep the thread very negative sounding!
. . . . . people may feel that improvements are required, which can be agreed or disagreed with and the issues will be debated, this is whats going to happen at the egm. in order to facitilate good debate on the night people can put up there views on this thread to help all sides see there agruements.
also could people post what phrasing etc should be included instead of the 'there-should-be-this-approach', so for example colin could post what he believes should be the phasing of point 4.10 instead of just explaining his views.
-
also could people post what phrasing etc should be included instead of the 'there-should-be-this-approach', so for example colin could post what he believes should be the phasing of point 4.10 instead of just explaining his views.
You mean do your work for you? :D Anyway, I thought I did alright!! :-
- Section 4.10: I think that this section needs to be changed and expanded. It should state that all club canoeing events are required to be run in accordance with the Code of Practice. This then requires adoption of the Code of Practice for future years. Further, changes to the Code of Practice should be made by a nominated committee of (say) 5 people of at least 1 Level 4 and 2 Level 3 instructors; the remaining members are at the descretion of the committee. Something along those lines anyway.
Until the principle is agreed there's not much point spending ages on the wording.
About the EGM - I agree that it is the evening for debate, but voting on it straight afterwards may not be easy until people have the final proposal before them. How is that going to work in the course of one (no doubt drunken) evening? Is it a thing that the debate could be held here and then a revised proposed constitution tabled at the EGM?? Is there enough time??
people can get carried away and keep the thread very negative sounding!
Get the hell outta here!! Myself at least has tried to make it very clear that this is not negative, but constructive, and that there is nothing but thanks for the tough job you are doing on behalf of the whole club!
I hope you don't mind the discussion etc, it really is meant in a constructive way. As I said it obviously took a lot of work to get it where it is - well done!
-
some of these might be a wee bit pedantic, I hope not, but anyways, these are my recommendations (warning: long post):
1. Change the 'Valid From' date on the cover page (I'm sure someone will, but just in case it slips through the cracks)
2. Use subsection numbers or letters or roman numerals, not just bullet points - it's a small matter but it's easier for reference (as in Article 3, 5.1, 5.3, etc).
3. There's a full stop missing after the second sentence of 4.1.
4. The old wording of 'The captaincy can only ever be held once...' (4.1) was better than the new wording of 'Any member can hold the captaincy once...'. The new wording contradicts the rest of 4.1, since not ANY member can hold the captaincy - only non ex-captains, those with previous committee experience, etc.
5. In 4.2 (Office of Secretary), the meetings are either 'regular' or 'on the request of any committee member', but specially requested meetings are, by definition, not regular.
6. Missing full stop at the end of 4.2 (I'll stop proofreading now, but maybe someone should give it a once-over before the EGM)
7. Could somebody elaborate what exactly the role of Child Officer is? I'm just curious...
8. Just wanted to confirm the intended use of 'biannual' in 4.9: Biannual means twice a year. Biennial means every two years. Is it to be every 6 months or every two years? (I remember huge confusion on these words from my Model UN days... ah, so much fun)
9. Is attendance at committee meetings compulsory or optional for the senior treasurer? This is a bit unclear.
10. (6.4) What does 'for another position' mean? Does it mean, for example, that a member on the floor can nominate a Treasury nominee for Safety & Training instead?
-
10. (6.4) What does 'for another position' mean? Does it mean, for example, that a member on the floor can nominate a Treasury nominee for Safety & Training instead?
Nominations close three days before the agm. However on the night of the agm a person who was nominated for treasurer but not elected to be treasurer could then be nominated for one of the other positions when voting for that position takes place.
9. Is attendance at committee meetings compulsory or optional for the senior treasurer? This is a bit unclear.
Attendance at committee meetings is not compulsory for the senior treasurer. The text was changed from 'may attend' so that the senior treasurer would feel that they are meant to be at meetings even though they have no vote. i think it's meant to read 'should' rather than 'shall'
8. Just wanted to confirm the intended use of 'biannual' in 4.9: Biannual means twice a year. Biennial means every two years. Is it to be every 6 months or every two years? (I remember huge confusion on these words from my Model UN days... ah, so much fun)
This means twice a year
7. Could somebody elaborate what exactly the role of Child Officer is? I'm just curious...
The AUC says we have to have a childrens officer but aren't very clear about what this role involves so i think we can be forgiven for being suitably vague.
-
also point 5 re. secretary.....secretary both organises regular committee meetings ie. once every two weeks....whatever is decided upon at the start of the year and special request meetings where a member of the committee may feel the need for a meeting re. some specific topic.
-
just on my point, i did say I didn't think it was an issue for the constitution (so i probably shouldn't have posted it here!)
Glad to see clarification is coming Tom!
Since everyone seems to be hitting the road in their own cars and buying spanking new gear these days there should be a firm policy of what you owe in all situations!
(God I have turned into such a boring auditor... :( seriously :( )
-
I know these are poxy issues and maybe need to be sorted out by those who know the law, insurance and the ICU
Eh, Colin, I do believe the lawyerly types you mention above have already pointed out that making the code a stipulation would be too inflexible. I for one would never agree to be a Trip Leader if the responsibilities set down in the code were legally binding. Also, the fact that All paddlers shall be graded by ICU standards.
means you would be very inflexible in involving those experienced paddlers who have never done a cert but who are highly valuable on a river...
As Miss Elizabeth Swan says:
They"re more like guidelines anyway!
-
Eh, Liz, any club trip is already run to the CoP which requires trip leaders to be currently registered and appropriately qualified for the grade of water on which the trip is to be run. Any such intructor is covered by ICU insurance.
I for one would never agree to be a Trip Leader if the responsibilities set down in the code were legally binding
I, for one, wouldn't want to be led down a river by someone not willing to take on the responsibility of safety.
experienced paddlers who have never done a cert
As it currently stands, such paddlers are considered rescue and not trip leaders on club trips. Yes, simply because they don't have a cert, which means they are not insured. This in no way takes away from the value of such paddlers, and often when not on club trips, it is paddlers such as these that take the lead.
Do we have confusion over what is a club trip here? Easily solved: a club trip is one that uses club gear and is run in accordance with the CoP. Anything else is a private trip amongst friends. Hence club trips tend to be Liffey/Boyne affairs (anf the occasional Jackson's trip) whilst private trips are Dargle-y good!
-
As far as I am aware qualified and currently registered instructors are only insured by the ICU for ICU courses. In the past club trips have been notified to the ICU office and put on their list of courses, thus insurance has been extended. I am not sure if this is still a current practice.
Greg
-
hey Guys,
made a few small changes to make it easier for monday, i hope i have clarified peoples views etc etc
click here for new draft
http://www.ucd.ie/canoe/UCDCCConstitutionFinalDraft.pdf
-
Before I've even opened it, it's funny to see that it's called the Final Draft. Are you trying to tell us something Tom?!!
4.9 COMMITTEE DISCLAIMER
Due to the hazardous nature of the sport, no club Officer shall be liable for any loss or injury incurred by any member or guest of the club during any club function or activity, provided that the activity is run in accordance with the Code of Practice.
Still not happy with this sentence. Why are you singling out committee members and how exactly is the disclaimer altered/improved by introducing the Code of Practice?
I'm glad to see that the voting issues have been clarified. I'd like to think that the decription of the job of Senior Treasurer deserves some paragraphs rather than just a PowerPoint-style bullet list - but maybe that's just personnal style so no bother. There are a couple of other grammar/style issues I pick out (eg mixture of double and single spaces after full-stops), but I think the meaning is clear in all cases. Maybe get someone independant to check it over? I could do it but Jim always love to help out :D
Lastly: well done! Lots of work but it's worth it.
-
the committee is being singled out since the because the the section is on the committee. it intends on singling out the committee :D
-
I gave a 'once-over' on an earlier draft, so whenever there's another draft ready, send it on to me and I'll have a look at that too. It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway - all the errors would have been introduced after I looked at it. Obviously.
Jim.
-
the committee is being singled out since the because the the section is on the committee. it intends on singling out the committee :D
Don't be smart, please just explain your ideas behind the unintelligable wording.
-
bring this post back to the top, all members of the club have a say in the proposed changes . . . . . . . . . 7.30 at the notice board
-
So what happened.
Were the changes excepted.
-
No
-
It was deemed that Jim's once-over wasn't satisfactory.