Unofficial UK Slalom BBS

6.1 ACM Voting
Proposed and Seconded by Holme Pierrepont Canoe Club
This motion affects the Regulations, so requires a 2/3 majority and approval by the BC board
Canoe Slalom needs to get away from the prehistoric notion that one clubs point of view is more valuable than another's.
HPPCC has a privileged position of, I believe, 2 votes, whilst some clubs 3 & others 1.
For the good of the sport ALL clubs should have equal voting powers.
Secretary Note, the base wording has been changed to reflect the current nomenclature (e.g. BCU to BC as the GB national body, including the federated unions).

Article 1 (page 178)
…Voting Club: Any Club Affiliated to the BC who has registered 3 ranked competitors or Volunteer Groups, whose members have BC membership, registered with the Slalom Secretary and approved at an Annual Consultative Meeting…
Article 6 Voting at Consultative Meetings (Page 181)
6.1 Each Voting Club will have one vote
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 any applicable Administration fees have been paid.
6.1 Each Club, affiliated to British Canoeing who has registered 3 ranked paddlers for the last full competition year will have one vote
6.2 Each Club, affiliated to British Canoeing, who do not qualify for a vote under 6.1 above may qualify for a vote by organising a ranking slalom in the last full competition year where all applicable Administration Fees have been paid.
6.3 Volunteer Groups, where the members are members of British Canoeing, registered with the Slalom Secretary and approved by an Annual Meeting will also have one vote.
6.4 Any one Club or Volunteer Group may only hold one vote. These clubs and groups are referred to as ‘Voting Clubs’.
6.3 If a competition is organised by one or more clubs, or a consortium of 2 or more clubs, the vote relating to that competition may be assigned to a registered club and the arrangement notified to the secretary
6.4 There is no vote for any event organised by the Slalom Committee
6.5 A voting Club can have as many voting representatives as it has votes. Each voting representative must be individual members of British Canoeing.

All clubs are NOT equal

Proposal 6.1, "ALL clubs should have equal voting powers" sounds very reasonable until you realise that it gives a club with 3 ranked paddlers the same influence as one with a hundred or more.

I'm puzzled by the preamble: it reads as though the writer hasn't understood the rule he wants to change. To make the present scenario clear: each registered club (with 3 or more ranked paddlers) gets one vote, however many ranked paddlers it has, and then one additional vote for each ranking slalom it has run that year. So influence goes to the clubs that contribute most to the sport.

I'm not sure that's the best option: some formula that assigns votes according to number of ranked paddlers (but without blowing the small clubs away) might make sense. But this proposal is not the solution.

Nick, HPPCC are very clear on their proposal & the rules it wishes to change:

Proposed and Seconded by Holme Pierrepont Canoe Club

This motion affects the Regulations, so requires a 2/3 majority and approval by the BC board
Canoe Slalom needs to get away from the prehistoric notion that one clubs point of view is more valuable than another's.
HPPCC has a privileged position of, I believe, 2 votes, whilst some clubs 3 & others 1.
For the good of the sport ALL clubs should have equal voting powers.
Secretary Note, the base wording has been changed to reflect the current nomenclature (e.g. BCU to BC as the GB national body, including the federated unions).

Article 1.............................................................................................................................................. (page 178)
…Voting Club: Any Club Affiliated to the BC who has registered 3 ranked competitors or Volunteer Groups, whose members have BC membership, registered with the Slalom Secretary and approved at an Annual Consultative Meeting…(REMOVED)
Article 6 Voting at Consultative Meetings.............................................................................. (Page 181) 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 & 6.5 REMOVED & REPLACED WITH:
6.1 Each Club, affiliated to British Canoeing who has registered 3 ranked paddlers for the last full competition year will have one vote
6.2 Each Club, affiliated to British Canoeing, who do not qualify for a vote under 6.1 above may qualify for a vote by organising a ranking slalom in the last full competition year where all applicable Administration Fees have been paid.
6.3 Volunteer Groups, where the members are members of British Canoeing, registered with the Slalom Secretary and approved by an Annual Meeting will also have one vote.
6.4 Any one Club or Volunteer Group may only hold one vote. These clubs and groups are referred to as ‘Voting Clubs’.
6.5 Each voting representative must be individual members of British Canoeing.

Nicks comment: ......So influence goes to the clubs that contribute most to the sport. Why? What has contribution got to do with a fair and level voting system? The cynic in me might say that HPPCC have been declined additional races they have offered to put on for the last two seasons because some committee members don't want HPPCC to have anymore influence (I'm not saying this is the case but the current voting format opens up these kind of comments). Which clubs have organised & provided safety at selection races and previous British Open events? Is this not contributing to the sport!; Which Clubs have had people volunteering to judge at other club events? Is this not contributing to the sport?; Which clubs have had volunteers on jury at other clubs events? Is this not contributing to the sport?; & so on & so on..........
Just because a club has more paddlers, better access to organise events, larger catchment area etc. etc. shouldn't dictate that their clubs opinion is any more valid than another club, it's outdated and needs a rethink. Clubs with the majority of votes (individually or combined) shouldn't be able to dictate changes and the future of the sport! HPPCC are putting on junior selection races next year as well as a proposed race in September; I'm not sure if this would have increased the votes to HPPCC or not but that's the last reason I & others volunteer our time. The proposal is about equality throughout the voting process.

As I said, I'm not sure the present arrangement is the best option: but it isn't more democratic to give a club of three influence equal to a club of 100.

The club of 3 or 100 aren't "influencing" anyone, they are merely voting yes or no (or abstaining) on a topic/change. Their vote will fall with the majority or the minority. On the rare occasion that something gets passed by one vote then "c'est la vie", the topic/change was a close call and could have gone either way!
Clubs need to stop influencing other clubs and just vote on what is right for them, and a true reflection of their members thoughts, at a given point in time.
At least a conversation has started..................

I wondering why voting on Canoe Slalom ACM motions needs to be done via Clubs anyway.

Why can't each Paddler, who is affiliated to a governing body i.e. British Canoeing, attend the ACM and vote as an individual on matters that affect them.

One paddler, one vote.

If you can't attend in person then perhaps it would be possible to submit a pre filled out proxy form.

After all, "How can a club with say 100 members, cut down to a committee of 8 or 10, represent the views of everyone by voting one way or the other?"

What we have currently is a series of smaller election results going forward to a summary election to get an overall result. A sort of Electoral College System and we all know how they can turn out.

Have we ever had such a system which proved not to work well before or would such a system be worth trying?

Steve

I wish I could buy your idea, Steve. But mass attendance isn't going to happen: proxies would make discussion irrelevant, because the decisions have already been made: and lack of engagement/apathy would make for a system that's wide open to exploitation by small but active lobby groups.
Representation via clubs isn't ideal, but it does work.

[quote="Nick Penfold"]Iand lack of engagement/apathy would make for a system that's wide open to exploitation by small but active lobby groups.

And the current system isn't? It also effectively disenfranchises all independent paddlers and those who don't paddle with slalom registered clubs. It's anti-diluvian and undemocratic and smacks of the worst excesses of the union block vote in bygone days.

The club/races-based system isn't ideal, and yes, it disenfranchises independents. Effectively, it puts voting power where effort is put in for common benefit. My guess is that, like democracy in the running of countries, it's the " least worst" option, if only because we can get a quorum.

It's not about the most effort, it's not a competition to say I have done more than you
so I am more powerful. What the voting system does is advantage the clubs that don't have to pay for the water
thus giving them an advantage to run more races. Yes they have to put the races on and good on em. I would also suspect that the races are put on to raise funds for the club as well,again good on em.

Do clubs really put races on to increase their vote? I doubt it, but it is an outdated by product of putting on races.

Is it just races where the effort is put in or is it also providing a good,
worthwhile,safe,fun,cost effective,sustainable,inclusive,coaching/training environment with development opportunities all year round? For 3 or for 100 paddlers it all takes a lot of effort.

If it was all about effort the timing team,section judges and the ever present jury members could out vote everyone
if of course they had three in their club.

One club one vote simple and inclusive,

I must agree one vote per club is far more democratic. Just because some have less ranked paddlers than others it doesn’t mean there are less people from tha club involved in slalom. Sadly at the moment voting is dominated by a few clubs with a number of votes each. I do think it needs to change but those clubs that are going to loose votes and influence are unlikely to support this motion as they will use their amassed votes to vote against

So for the wider slalom population,
can we have a list of clubs with the amount of votes they each carry who are eligible
to vote at the ACM please.

Also after the ACM can we also have a list published of who voted for what, and how many votes each club carry next to each vote taken.
This makes the whole process transparent.

So for the wider slalom population,
can we have a list of clubs with the amount of votes they each carry who are eligible
to vote at the ACM please.

Also after the ACM can we also have a list published of who voted for what, and how many votes each club carry next to each vote taken.
This makes the whole process transparent.

Mark H wrote:So for the wider slalom population,
can we have a list of clubs with the amount of votes they each carry who are eligible
to vote at the ACM please.

Also after the ACM can we also have a list published of who voted for what, and how many votes each club carry next to each vote taken.
This makes the whole process transparent.

This does sound like you are planning on a lynch mob!

I think the second part of your request may be a little impractical. I'm pretty sure that although voting is open, no one is recording exactly who votes for what and as such this would take much longer to record than just the total for, against and abstain

Sorry but no on who voted for what, on two fronts:
1) most votes are a show of hands / votes. No one is recording who has voted each way / abstained. Unless you want to come along, and recognise and record these individual votes. Those who are there would (I suspect) prefer to get home an hour earlier.
2) If called for there is a secret ballot, so such recording is not possible / permisable.

Number of votes per club can be worked out from ranking lists and the slalom calenda. I will be doing this and will ask the meeting if they are happy for me to publish this.