Unofficial UK Slalom BBS

This motion affects the Regulations, so requires a 2/3 majority and approval by the BC board
At the 2017 ACM, the Slalom Committee was asked to consult on voting options and bring proposals to the 2018 ACM. After some discussion, a consultation was issued on the web. There were a relatively small number of respondents (27) with a variety of responses. Taking into account these responses and feedback delivered personally to Committee members the motion below reflects the dual priorities for the sport, increasing participation, and having competitions run. It also addresses the perceived imbalance where a club can have an excessive influence.
For the avoidance of doubt, the changes proposed need adoption by the British Canoeing Board of Directors before taking effect, so voting at this ACM will not be affected.

Page 191
6.1 Each Voting Club will have 1 vote and will be allocated an additional vote if it has 21 Ranked Members or more.
6.2 Each such club will have an additional vote for each Ranking Slalom it has organised in the last full competition year, for which Administration fees have been paid.
6.2 Each Voting Club is allocated 1 vote for each Ranking Slalom it has organised in the immediately preceding 12 months. If a Ranking Slalom is organised by more than one club, or a consortium of clubs, the vote relating to that Ranking Slalom may be assigned to a Registered Club by notifying the Secretary of the allocation. There is no vote for any competition organised by the British Canoeing Slalom Committee, or a Home Nation Slalom Committee.
6.3 If an event is organised by more than one club, or a consortium of clubs, the vote relating to that event may be assigned to a Registered Club by notifying the Secretary of the allocation.
6.4 There is no vote for any competition organised by the Slalom Committee.
6.3 Each Voting Club may have a maximum of five votes.
6.4 Voting Clubs may not vote at a Consultative Meeting unless all money due to the British Canoeing Slalom Committee by them at the time has been paid by no later than 48 hours before the appointed start of the Consultative Meeting.

I like this, but I think it would be better written:

Each voting club may have up to five votes, allocated as follows:
6.1 Each Voting Club will have one vote and will be allocated an additional vote if it has 21 Ranked Members or more.
6.2 Subject to the limit of five votes in all, each Voting Club is allocated one additional vote for each Ranking Slalom it has organised in the immediately preceding 12 months. If a Ranking Slalom is organised by more than one club, or a consortium of clubs, the vote relating to that Ranking Slalom may be assigned to a Registered Club by notifying the Secretary of the allocation. There is no vote for any competition organised by the British Canoeing Slalom Committee, or a Home Nation Slalom Committee.
6.3 Voting Clubs may not vote at a Consultative Meeting unless all money due to the British Canoeing Slalom Committee by them at the time has been paid by no later than 48 hours before the appointed start of the Consultative Meeting.

Just a thought, but topical for this year!

What happens where clubs organise a slalom but are forced to cancel late on. They have put in the effort and done the work, but the competitors have not received the benefit. I don't believe cancelled slaloms count and probably shouldn't but is it something that should be considered in the future?

Also is a "Ranking Slalom" equivalent to a "Competition" as defined elsewhere? Is a Prem Sat/div 1 Sun a single Ranking Slalom or two separate ones? What about a div 4 run alongside a 2/3 or even alongside a div 1? I'd be inclined to say these all constitute a single vote, but .....

More tidying up of definitions for Colin!

As I remember a ranking slalom is the whole event so a double 2/3 + 4 gets you one vote. I've often thought a double should get 2.

djberriman wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:47 pm

As I remember a ranking slalom is the whole event so a double 2/3 + 4 gets you one vote. I've often thought a double should get 2.

I'm not sure that "Ranking Slalom" is defined.

Competition is defined as "All events completed at a site on a weekend" . So something like Cardington 2/3/4 would indeed be one competition.

Problem then, is what happens where separate divisions are run by separate clubs. I'm thinking of places like Lee Valley where a Div 2 is run on the legacy alongside a Prem on the main course. These are run as two separate competitions with different controls/teams etc, but by the definition they are actually the same competition. You could get a similar issue with HPP if, say, a different club ran a div 4 on the lake alongside a P/1/2 on the main course. These are intrinsically different from a competition being run jointly by two clubs.

Lee Valley is not a problem, teh main course is run by the slalom committee - no vote, so Lee Valley gets the vote.

Will propose adding definition of Ranking Competition to the Terms of Reference so that they stand on their own, but make it the same as for the rules, then changing slalom to competition here.

Cancelled slaloms do not get a vote. Never have. Just more of a headache for me working out how many votes each club gets

The majority of slaloms are doubles now (or 1 div each day) so the effect of giving 2 votes for a double would be minimal, except that we are introducing a maximum number of votes per club this time (I am sure you did not miss that). So 2 votes for a double would mean more clubs on the limit, AND harder for tellers to count votes the numbers will be bigger.

Nicks comments made me realise 6.1 should be

Each Voting Club with more than three Ranked Members will have 1 vote and will be allocated an additional vote if it has 21 Ranked Members or more.

otherwise a club with no ranked members, who organise a slalom would have 1 vote as they are defined as Voting Club AND 1 as organised a slalom.

But whether the limit is 6.3 (unambiguous) or part of 6.2 (where applies) is to me just a stylistic thing and we can discuss at the ACM if really wanted

Canadian Paddler wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:45 pm

Lee Valley is not a problem, teh main course is run by the slalom committee - no vote, so Lee Valley gets the vote.

Yes, but in my other example this would not necessarily be true. I'm just thinking what if.... not that this effects the rule change as it is the same under the new and old rules.

Is a division 4 slalom a ranking slalom?
It feeds the ranking system, but is not actually ranked.

The paddlers are not ranked but the slalom is ranking as it impacts ranking of paddlers ie results in promotions.

As distinct from the winter slaloms that have no impact on rankings at all

The proposer changed the wording so that ‘Ranking Slalom’ became ‘Ranking Competition’, and to define competition in the same way it is defined for the rules.

The motion was adopted nem con.