Slalom Committee. Twelfth. Annual Consultative Meeting 28th November 2015

Transcription

1 Slalom Committee Twelfth Annual Consultative Meeting 28th November 2015 Location: British Canoe Union HQ, National Water Sports Centre Adbolton Lane, Holme Pierrepont, Nottingham, NG12 2LU Minutes

2 1 Welcome by the Chair The Chair thanked British Canoeing for the use of the premises. He then welcomed 48 people, representing 30 clubs to the meeting; between them, they held 83 votes. Ken Trollope and John Sturgess were appointed tellers for the meeting. Apologies were received from Andy and Michelle Grudzinski, who were attending the Rio Olympic Test event. 2 Minutes th Annual Consultative Meeting The Minutes of the 11 th Annual Meeting were accepted as a true record. Proposed by Proteus Canoe Club and seconded by Viking Kayak Club. This was was adopted nem con con / 2015 Committee Meetings Minutes from the 2014 / 2015 Slalom Committee meetings were tabled for information 3 Reports 3.1 Chair s Report A report was tabled and is available on the Canoe Slalom UK web site. In his first report as Chair, he acknowledged the help, advice and support received from all the members of the Committee. The Committee is here to serve the sport, and members volunteer their time alongside many other canoeing activities and he felt very grateful for all their efforts. This year has had some exceptional high points, such as Great Britain hosting the World Championships at Lee Valley. Many members of the Slalom community volunteered their time and in doing so contributed to the success of the event. Post event feedback has been extremely positive with many competitors saying it was the best Worlds they had been to. This, coupled with a glowing report from the ICF, clearly demonstrates the capability that exists within the Slalom community in this country. It is very encouraging that race sites such as Symonds Yat are regularly back on the calendar alongside new sites such as Dulverton; especially as these provide opportunities for the lower divisions and new entrants into Canoe Slalom. Investments such as the pumped course at Pinkston and the reconfiguration of Cardington are welcome developments and congratulations to all involved in bringing these developments to fruition. This year we had new organizers for the Interclubs and by all measures, it was a great success. I would like to extend our thanks to Viking, Llandysul and Bedford canoe clubs for their hard work in ensuring that this important event continues to thrive. We also face challenges. A number of Division 1 events this year have been oversubscribed, and reported as full, well in advance of the event cutoff. Pumped courses provide predicable and consistent paddling experiences but Slalom has to compete with other water users given that the centres are run as commercial operations, and increased costs have to be recouped through higher entry fees. Turning to the governance of Slalom, the British Canoeing board have approved the formation of a Competition and Events Strategy Group (CESG) which is chaired by a board member; Greg Smale. The CESG is initially charged with developing the national competition structure within Slalom and Sprint with the aim to help representative teams achieve International success. A key deliverable is to attract potential sponsors and to this end, it is planned that the British Open in 2016 will be promoted as a showcase event. This is a welcome development that shows clear Board level support for our competition structure, however, it presents a challenge to arrive at a format that works well for the needs of all paddlers, whether or not they are members of a performance squad. It has been an unusual year having two Senior selection races during the year, however we have selected our team for the Rio Olympic Games in good time to allow them to train at the new venue and be fully prepared to compete for medals next summer. Page 2

3 Jim Croft has decided to retire this year. Jim has been a longstanding member of the committee and slalom administrator since The chair took the opportunity to thank Jim for his work and for his many other contributions over the years supporting Canoe Slalom. Finally, he extended his thanks and gratitude to all the volunteers that make this sport the exciting spectacle that it is today. Without individuals prepared to organize events, judge, provide safety, support timing and the myriad of other activities, we would not have the breadth and depth of events and opportunities for competitors of all ages and abilities. 3.2 Treasurer s Report Accounts The Treasurer tabled the un-audited accounts for the year ended 31 October 2015 and provided an overview. The major points from the report and subsequent discussion were: The accounts show a surplus of income over expenditure of 16,964 (2014 9,365). Income was over 8,000 above budget with gross levies 7% higher than 2014 (5% increase in 2013). Expenditure was over 16,000 below budget with underspends across most cost lines. The Accounts of the Canoe England Slalom Committee remain within, and are overseen by, the Slalom Committee. As at 31 October the balance of funds held for CESC was 21, British Canoeing Competition Grant The Committee receives a Competition grant from British Canoeing (Canoe England as was). This grant if focussed almost exclusively on English paddler development, though with some direct support to fund other elements of Committee expenditure. 5,000 of the Canoe England grant was used to support the Lee Valley World Championships in September Income and Expenditure As at 31 st October, the closing reserves stand at 58,519. This is a level that is higher than required for the year-to-year running of the sport. Over 20,000 has been earmarked for a TUTTI replacement project, and steps will be taken (by the Committee and CESC) to reduce the Reserves further in 2015/2016. Income s Expenditure Page 3

4 A motion to accept the accounts was proposed by Frome Canoe Club Club and seconded by The Sharks Kayak Club. This was was adopted nem con con. 3.3 Reports from Co-ordinators Reports were tabled and available on the canoe slalom uk web site from Competition Co-Ordinator (Jacky Brookes) Event Management (Peter Curry) Strategic Planning (Dave Spencer) Technical Support (Andy Grudzinski) Volunteer (Jim Croft) British Canoeing (Craig Morris) England (Dave Royle) Scotland (Chris Baillie) Wales (Mark Abbott) Athlete Representative (Martyn Setchell) 4 Elections 4.1 Vice Chair Martyn Setchell was been proposed and seconded by the Slalom Committee. In the absence of any other nominations he was elected unopposed. 4.2 Secretary Colin Woodgate was been proposed and seconded by the Slalom Committee. In the absence of any other nominations he was elected unopposed 4.3 Committee Members Andy Grudzinski, Peter Curry, Hazel Ridge, Jacki Stokes and Nick Taylor were nominated. In the absence of any further nominations, the above were elected unanimously. The committee was empowered to allocate the two-year and one-year appointments. The other elected committee members are Dave Spencer (Chair), Andy Koszary (Treasurer), Jim Croft, Jackie Brooks (elected members) Appointed by other bodies: Dave Royle (England), Chris Baillie (Scotland), Mark Abbott (Wales), and Craig Morris (British Canoeing performance). Page 4

5 4.4 Other Officials TUTTI Maintenance Andy Hounslow Ranking Officer Nick Penfold Entry Cards Susan Paterson Ranking Status Officer John Woods Ranking Officers Premier Men Tracy Wells Men s Canadian Singles Carole McGranachan Division 1 Men Nick Penfold Women s Canadian Singles Mark Shaw Division 2 Men Les Saunders Canadian Doubles Stuart Meakins Division 3 Men Penny Scaife Veterans P/1 All Categories Mike Carter Division 4 Men James Hastings Veterans 2/3 All Categories Terry Griffiths K1 Women Prem & 1 Sally Atkinson Officials Compiler Amanda Woodgate K1 Women Divisions 2 & 3 Tanya Gibbons Bib Issue Premier Men Tracy Wells Men s Canadian Singles Carole McGranachan Division 1 Men Nick Penfold Women s Canadian Singles Mark Shaw Division 2 Men Les Saunders Canadian Doubles Stuart Meakins Division 3 Men Nicki Watson Veterans P/1 All Categories Mike Carter K1 Women Prem & 1 Sally Atkinson Veterans 2/3 All Categories Terry Griffiths K1 Women Divisions 2 & 3 Tanya Gibbons Team Bib Hire Dave Lomas The above were elected en-bloc, with no objections. The meeting unanimously offered a vote of thanks to Mike Carter who was stepping down as women s kayak compiler after decades of service 5 Awards 5.1 Ed Ecclestone award Nominees for the Ed Ecclestone award this year are: Johnny Brown Mike Carter Andy Grudzinski Dave Waine The award was won by Johnny Brown. As the nominations say: He is an inspirational character whose skill and patience motivates kids to perform to the best of their ability with absolutely tremendous results. In the summer, like many before, he organised his family commitments around taking family groups out to Poland and Prague for some summer training. Johnny has a natural ability to identify and develop young paddlers. They respond to his enthusiasm, drive, and encouragement, growing from young naïve paddlers to Olympic podium Johnny understands the demands of this sport, how it affects family and school life, and he has a wealth of experience Johnny was unable to attend the ACM due to prior commitments. Arrangements will be made to present the award at a suitable occasion. Page 5

6 6 Motions Minutes of the 12 th Annual Consultative Meeting 6.1 Standardisation of Terminology 75/25 There are a number of phrases used through the yearbook, to relating to the structure of the sport. Attempting to reduce confusion, and bring us in line with the ICF the following conventions will be adopted throughout the year book. Competition All events completed at a site on a weekend. Categories Kayak Men (KM), Kayak Women (KW), Canadian Men (CM), Canadian Women (CW) Event Individual K1M, K1W, C1M, C1W, C2, Mixed Category Teams Phase Run 1, Run 2, Semi-final, Final These definitions should be used throughout the rules, removing any alternate names. There are a small number of typographical errors in the yearbook; these will be cleaned up in this exercise. This motion was handled under article 5.9 and voted on immediately. It was adopted nem con. 6.2 Portable points NOTE: Three motions had been received regarding Portable Points. There was a wide-ranging debate on the subject, then there were voted on the motions in the order they were received Do Not Introduce Portable Points - Proposed and seconded by Proteus Canoe Club Preamble This season has seen a number of issues with events being full in advance, and paddlers unable to get entries in their home division. This is believed to be due to the increased support being offered to young paddlers in various Talent Identification Programs. These programs allow groups of youngsters to receive intensive coaching from an early stage, and progress rapidly through the divisions. This, welcome, approach will, we believe, will result in a stronger sport. But (at least in the short term) has resulted in an inversion of the numbers paddling in each division. There is a general concern that the introduction of portable points, and the restructuring of the calendar to support this will result in a greater number of events reaching their entry limits at the top divisions, and a reduction in the number of athletes competing at lower division events, further compromising the standards at lower divisions. Regulation 5.7 empowers the Slalom Committee to reject motions that have either the same purpose as ones that have been rejected by a large majority, or negate the purpose of an item accepted by a large majority the previous year. Such motions may be accepted if in the opinion of the Slalom Committee there has been substantial change in the circumstances or new evidence is available. The motion below will negate motion 6.10 of last year s meeting. We contend that a majority of 22 for, 18 against with 13 abstentions is not a large majority, and that the oversubscription of a large number of division 1 and premier races this season is new evidence Motion That motion 6.10 from the 2014 ACM should be set aside, and that portable points should not be introduced. The ranking system should remain as it is now, with ranking points only being earned in the current division, and all divisional points calculated from a base of 1,000 points. The Ranking Calendar approved at this meeting will not become final for 1 month, to allow clubs to apply to run double division events. Where a club has applied for a particular division, they take precedence over a club wishing to add that division to an approved event. The ranking Calendar officer being empowered to resolve any clashes between events where additional divisions are requested. The motion received 27 votes for and 54 votes against, with 0 abstentions. It therefore failed Page 6

7 6.2.2 Delay Portable Points - Proposed by Halifax Canoe Club Background We feel that the decision to introduce portable points at the 2014 ACM was made with limited information about the impact that changes would have across all levels of the sport which is perhaps reflected in the fact that the vote on this motion saw many abstentions and a modest majority. We acknowledge that there is an issue with the current Paddle Up arrangements that give paddlers an all or nothing result, but feel there may be other ways to address this without the wholesale changes to be implemented through Portable Points. Within the published rule changes we feel there is a problem with carrying forward points into the higher division. We understood that a paddler would taking points earned at a paddle up event forward into their new division after promotion, but the published proposed rules will base ranking on the best five results in the year. This could mean a paddlers ranking in their new division being based solely on results gained at events in their former division. For example a Div 2 paddler could earn promotion with 2325 point gained at Div 2 events and may not gain higher points score at races in their new division. At the end of the season they would then be ranked higher than many established Div 1 paddlers who have raced all year on more challenging courses. We also feel that there hasn't been consideration of the impact of these changes on paddlers and families at the lower end of the sport. The introduction of single division events will see families with paddlers in different divisions having to choose which paddler goes to an event for their division each weekend. We appreciate that those in the lower division can choose to paddle up, but they won't be guaranteed a place to paddle up until 4 weeks before the event which makes it difficult for families and clubs to plan ahead. There will be a decision to make on whether the paddler is likely to gain more from going to their own division event or from paddling up. It will also be more expensive for paddlers and families to enter the same events next year if some have to enter as paddle ups rather than in the second division at an event. So single division events may complicate decisions on events and confuse those new to the sport. Of course if the current trend of events filling up early in some divisions continues, the option to paddle up will be limited, further complicating the decisions for families and clubs about which events to attend. The proposals may also impact on Div 3/4 events which may see reduced numbers racing in Div 3. This may impact on the viability of events for organising clubs. It may also effect the level of competition at these events as better paddlers in the division choose to paddle up. Therefore we are yet to be convinced on the need for these changes, what the changes are seeking to address, and whether the proposals are the best solution. Equally we can see that there could be benefits to changing the current system. But we have yet to be convinced either way. The implementation of Portable Points will see a fundamental change to all levels of the sport and we feel it is too important to either rush into without further consideration or to dismiss completely with the potential to lose an opportunity to move the sport forward for a number of years. So we propose that the implementation of Portable Points is put on hold for a final decision at the 2016 ACM. The intervening year should be used to consult and communicate with clubs and paddlers at all levels of the sport to understand the benefits and address concerns with the proposed changes to the existing system, as well as look at fine tuning or bringing forward alternative solutions Motion The proposed changes to the slalom rules to introduce Portable Points to the ranking system for the 2016 season will be postponed to allow further consultations and discussion of the implications of these changes across all levels of the sport. This time should be used as an opportunity to: communicate the need for and benefits of the proposed changes. address concerns over the changes. consider any alternatives options to advance the sport at all levels. A final decision on the implementation of Portable Points and relevant rule changes will be brought to the 2016 ACM. The motion received 56 votes for and 25 votes against, with 2 abstentions. It was duly adopted Page 7

8 6.2.3 Changes to the published portable points rules Preamble The proposed rule changes for portable points have been published. Since publication, additional changes have been proposed: When a paddler is promoted, points earned in the original division are lost; any points earned in the new division (through paddle up) are all retained. Short season protection is retained for both new promotes and those granted ranking status. An amendment to this motion was put that Some competitions may be designated as division 2(3) competitions. Which do not give priority to either division, but allow all ranking paddlers equal entry priority. The entry fee for these events will be the Division 2 entry fee. This amendment was accepted nem con Motion Adjust the published rule changes to reflect the retention of only paddle up points, and retain short season status as in the document submitted for the ACM. As Motion was adopted, this motion was withdrawn. 6.3 Remove Paddle Up Proposed and seconded by Proteus Canoe Club Preamble Paddle up has been trialled for several years, with the experience showing that there are problems for those applying to paddle up, and wishing to secure reasonable accommodation for those in host divisions, where events are reported as full in advance of the closing date, even where the event is only full if paddle up entries are included for those trying to ensure that the event is correctly judged, as the pool of paddlers available to judge events is severely reduced by those paddling up. More and more paddlers are being asked to judge and compete, which is not the best preparation for high class competition Additionally there is a difference in the pressure on paddlers on the start line. Those paddling up have nothing to lose; those racing in division know this is one of the few times in the season when they can earn ranking points. The difference in pressure can affect the performance, resulting in technically poorer paddlers getting better results. Removal of the paddle up rules would still allow, unranked, good paddlers to enter an open, or officials event at a division and use that result as evidence to apply to be ranked in that division Motion Remove the ability to paddle up and achieve ranking. Remove rules B3.3 (page 67,68) Amend Rules B4.3.2, B4.3.3, B4.3.4 (page 70). In each case changing the words: on gaining xxxx points from the best five events or a combination of maximum points or achieving the paddle up standard at three events to read on gaining xxxx points from the best five events or a achieving maximum points at three events The motion received 13 votes for and 67 votes against, with 3 abstentions. It therefore failed Page 8

9 6.4 Priority Entry Deadline Preamble At present Host division entries have priority over paddle ups up to the entry deadline. This precludes paddle up entries from making bookings for accommodation at good rates, unless they are willing to attend the event as officials if the paddle up entry is refused. In order to allow better planning for those paddling up, a priority entry deadline is proposed. Entries from host division events will have priority over paddle up entries up to this deadline. After this deadline, entries are taken on a strict date received basis. Note this will be withdrawn if motion 6.3 is adopted Motion Rule B3.3.2 Paddle Up Participation Conditions The event organiser may impose a limit on numbers, either in the published calendar or at the time of planning the start list. If such a limit is applied, priority of entry shall be as follows: a) Up to the event priority entry deadline: Host division paddlers, in order of receipt of entries, then paddlers up, in order of receipt of entries. b) After the event priority entry up to entry cut-off: both Host division and paddling up paddlers in order of receipt of entries. Note: the priority entry deadline is the Friday four weeks prior to the event. The motion received 68 votes for and 13 votes against, with 2 abstentions. It was therefore adopted 6.5 Entry Fees the same for all age groups Preamble The majority of paddlers in lower divisions are juniors. These athletes will have been brought to the event by accompanying adults. Many of these adults do not compete themselves, but still support the event by providing transport. In order to encourage these adults to enter, it is proposed that all entrants pay the same fee, with the fee being set at the junior entry rate. This will have an effect on the monies taken by the club to run the event. It is hoped that this will be negligible as additional entries are made. However, this is not certain, so a reduction in the administration fee is proposed to protect the viability of these events. Note that if either motion 6.2 is adopted, reference to division 2/3 events will be included, also at 40% Motion Rule UK C Junior entrants MUST state their date of birth on their entry in order to be eligible for Junior prizes. claim junior rate for individual entries. Fees quoted are per boat, and refer to all classes. In the C2 event, both competitors must be junior in order to claim the reduced rate. Late entries, when accepted by the Organiser MAY be charged extra (see Rule UK C11.3(d)). Late entry fees may vary in accordance with C below. Rule D7.10 Send the completed summary sheets, a copy of the results and the appropriate percentage of minimum entry fee to 45% of minimum entry fees, all divisions except division 4 and teams nil to the percentage is calculated on the number of starters but excluding officials. The percentage will be Premier and Division 1, 45%; Division 2, 40%, Division 3 and 4 nil. Where entry fees are set at two levels, one for juniors and one for seniors, set the senior entry fee to the junior entry fee. Then remove all references to senior or junior entry fee from the rules, referencing all as the entry fee. The motion received 78 votes for and 5 votes against, with no abstentions. It was therefore adopted Page 9

10 7 Approval of the calendar for 2016 Changes and Additions requested after the closing date, but before the Agenda was published, were discussed. These changes were accepted with a short debate A motion to accept the calendar was proposed by Kingston Kayak Club, seconded by Halifax Canoe Club and carried nem con. The resulting calendar is subject to review by organisers of events on the calendar, to confirm any dual division events to be run. These changes must be received by 20 December. Any further new events cannot be added. The formal part of the meeting was completed by 15:15 8 General Discussion 8.1 Integrated Working Party The aims of the Working Party are to develop proposals to meet the following aims: To create a structure which is fit for purpose to support the vision, mission and strategic priorities of British Canoeing Achieve greater clarity and integration between staff and volunteer roles, and between regional and discipline committees, to increase efficiency and avoid duplication Reduce volunteer workload Ensure each discipline can meets the needs of current and potential paddlers (customers) and increase the numbers competing. Three areas were considered: English Council Regional Delivery Teams (RDTs) Discipline Delivery Teams (DDTs) The Slalom Committee is one of the DDTs and the report states the purpose as:.. to oversee the delivery and development of the Canoe Slalom Discipline in Great Britain and NI, linking to the British Canoeing Board through English Council and home nation committees A paper will be circulated with the minutes of the meeting. Feedback is requested before Christmas. 8.2 British Canoeing Branding A discussion led by Mark Taffler, and Patrick Doyle, the newly appointed Commercial Director. Emphasising the need for a common look and feel across canoeing events and activities as essential for engaging potential sponsors. There was a lively, wide-ranging discussion. The meeting welcomed the British Canoeing participation and thanked the employees for their time and the friendly way they participated in the discussions. The proposition being offered to various commercial partners was explained, and then an introduction to the brand and its use. Major points from the day included The communication from British Canoeing about the changes of brand and naming of the various parts of the old British Canoe Union That the branding and structure seems to ignore and disenfranchise England as a home nation A corollary of the above is the apparent down grading of British Canoeing team clothing as the same branding is used for both the National Team, and for various English training groups. Although accepting the British Canoeing brand to assist in the increased profile, use of the slalom brand as a secondary brand is a desire. Lots of time, effort, and emotion have been invested in the slalom paddler. 8.3 Entry Process and Fees Increasingly entries have been made in advance, with events being filled in advance, and many people withdrawing entries close to the event. Rule C (page 84) states that entry fees are not refundable except in specific circumstances. In order to encourage early withdrawal and reduce the work for organisers this process is to be discussed. Page 10

11 A change to the process to be trialled for the 2016 season will be that entries are only refundable when an event becomes full, and remains full after the withdrawal. 8.4 Race Formats Richard Lee led an interesting discussion of possible approaches for the direction of the sport and some of the challenges and opportunities. 8.5 British Canoeing Safety Management British Canoeing has mandated that any event open to the public, must have an event safety plan approved by the committee before the event. These should be sent to Peter Curry. This is in addition to the requirement to continue to supply a risk assessment, reviewed on the day for conditions. A copy of this last should be supplied to the Chief Judge. Page 11