A new beginning or an old start....

[Darin Edmunds]

Having served as student to some very capable instructors then witness the birth of two branches via cellular division at club level and then serve the matriarch branch of the two as Training Officer...I have a few things I'd like to air and I'd like the BS-AC to take note of...
The BSAC training (I am also a PADI DM...) up to and including SD is seconf to none simply because of the time each branch invests to complete a student however, I do feel from that grade onwards we do not do ourselves any favours. The courses have been revamped and I for one believe they have been revamped for the better and not for the worse. I am a relatively junior diver of almost AD quality with only 160 dives to my name in a period od not more than 3 years... and yet I feel very strongly on more than one topic of the BSAC.

We have all received and generally accepted the new curriculum but I feel the we have not addresses some of the root problems. I firmly believe there should be three BSAC coveted positions within any branch; The chairperson for ensuring the club remains financially viable within the constaints defined under the BSAC and common law; the DO to ensure diving practices are safe and legal to ensure limited liability against the clube as a whole; and finally the Training Officer whom I believe should report through an established BSAC training network.

The latter is my bug bear. We within the BSAC are very good as pushing out competent complete divers to at least the Sports Diver Level and one could argue this for Dive Leader under the old curriculum. Its taken alog while to reach this point but here it is...

We (the BSAC) do not do enough to train the trainers....!!!! There I've said it and in written form too. As an SD you can lecture people and help train people and then one day you get accepted as the TO becuase no one wants to do it and you get assistance from a myriad of people who are not sure whether their personal skills are up to scratch or what the BSAC are currently advocating..,Yet look at some of the other organisations that we quietly mock where you pay another duty in; they offer trainer training ensuring a consistency... an approved consistency of approach for all instructorss...

I believe a branch must have a duely elective committee comprising a chair person, Diving Officer and a Traing Officer that hold the relevant qualifications to actually perform those roles via the appropriate course not yet established by the BSAC. I also believe that If a branch can't support a TO who is BSAC Training approved then that branch should not provide any trainign until it can suppy a BSAC approved TO. Failure to provide a BSAC trained DO and CP should involde that branch being affiliated to one that does have the appropriate qualified memgbers.

This means the BSAC must provide courses on how to be either a CP, DO or TO so that these people know and accept without reservation their obligations and limitations.

I have more but I suspect this will be enough to prompt a debate that I sincerely hope someone on the top table will take note...

Darin

[michael smith]

Hello, if the Regions were to offer training on how to be a TO, DO & Chair person, how many would be interested?

Regards Mike

[Steve Walker]

This means the BSAC must provide courses on how to be either a CP, DO or TO so that these people know and accept without reservation their obligations and limitations.

As someone with several years of committee experience, my understanding is that although it is highly recommended, there is no _madatory_ requirement for branches to have a constitution/bye-laws and therefore no obligitary hard and fast rules on how branches should be run. Consequently there is no one definition of how the branch officers should carry out their roles, so any such course would be merely suggestions and recommendations.

Also, is there not an underlying rationale that anyone sufficiently motivated to take on one of the Branch Officer roles would be similarly motivated to decide, either for theirselves or inconjunction with their regional coaching team, the scope of their responibilities?

Regards
Steve

[Darin Edmunds]

Hello, if the Regions were to offer training on how to be a TO, DO & Chair person, how many would be interested?

Regards Mike

Hi Mike,

Personally I think it would be a well subscribed course however,
I can't and wouldn't want to speak for any other branch and I can't answer categorically for my own branch however. Our branch does not seem to be different to the many others who have members posting queries about the roles and wherefores of the committee posts. I personally believe such a course should be mandatory (I know all posts are voluntary...) as these posts are filled in by normal divers who now need to take on abnormal responsibilities. Perhaps this measure might ensure a consistency across all branches ( why not model of the best)and show people what the role entails and (in cuckoo land now) perhaps even prevent some the bitterness that appears to surface when the DO, TO or CP makes a decision or stance...

Kind regards

Darin

[Darin Edmunds]

:=This means the BSAC must provide courses on how to be either a CP, DO or TO so that these people know and accept without reservation their obligations and limitations.

As someone with several years of committee experience, my understanding is that although it is highly recommended, there is no _madatory_ requirement for branches to have a constitution/bye-laws and therefore no obligitary hard and fast rules on how branches should be run. Consequently there is no one definition of how the branch officers should carry out their roles, so any such course would be merely suggestions and recommendations.

Also, is there not an underlying rationale that anyone sufficiently motivated to take on one of the Branch Officer roles would be similarly motivated to decide, either for theirselves or inconjunction with their regional coaching team, the scope of their responibilities?

Regards
Steve

Hi Steve,

I understand the sentiment and wholly accept everything you have written. I too have sat on the committee round table for many a year and I have been thinking on how to make things work better.

Training...

I believe the steps taken for the new courses are the right ones and I believe now is the opportune moment to ensure the individual is proactively supported by the training infrastructure beyond AI.

If the TO was responsible to the Regional Coach as opposed to there is a Branch TO and there is a Regional Coach and ne'er the twain shall interface. Then perhaps we could make more of the training and provide instructor furtherance courses such as O2, PRM, Nitrox... all of which are possible if one attends as an assistant and gets signed off. Often its not possible and there does not seem to be a great willing on the prat of branches to allow an instructor from another branch assit on a local SDC. If these courses were open to Instructors as a mandatory first step covering 'the technical know how' and 'limitation vs liability'. They could then assist a course by being placed on one by the Regional or even central coach management team.

My thinking is that there would be a consistent approach to the best techniques for diving and management of dives. As a silly example: I am looking forward to seeing the mid water DSMB deployment as in our branch there are many who believe their way is best and it ranges from the weighted 12m line to using the DV exhaust...

Chairing...

We are a none profit organisation as set out by the BSAC manual. This manual sets out to give a good overview of possible branch structures but has in the past had very grey areas and even contradictions between sections. Even so I don't think the manual or the current BSAC structure does enough to 'gel' the branches with HQ and on that basis it might prove useful to run a DO course and using it to establish network communication lines etc.

Diving Officer...

I quote >>>"If 'private' diving takes place without the prior knowledge of the DO - and an incident occurred as a result of not following safe diving practices, then this could still implicate the DO and BSAC in any claim."

No grey areas if all parties excercise the appropriate duty of care and follow safe diving practices<<< from HQ

So what can the DO do to limit BSAC's liability apart from stopping everyone from diving or what is the best approach to risk management.

It seems next AGM subject to AD qualification 'Joe Bloggs' could get voted in as Branch DO and the basis he/she is very popular or no-one else wants the job. What does 'Joe Bloggs' know about DO'ing and the legal and structural implications?

Generally...

I know my views can seem quite 'in your face' and I apologise to anyone who might take offence. These are just that, my views on how we (BSAC) can find that next gear.

Kind regards

Darin

[Steve Walker]

Diving Officer...

I quote >>>"If 'private' diving takes place without the prior knowledge of the DO - and an incident occurred as a result of not following safe diving practices, then this could still implicate the DO and BSAC in any claim."

Is that from the Branch Officers Handbook? My understanding has always been that if folk don't consult the DO about their diving activities and are using all their privately-owned equipment that is doesn't qualify as a "branch dive" and there is no DO liability.

I don't know about your club, but my old club always has/had a difficult job getting people to take up committee positions, adding a mandatory course would, for such clubs, make things even more "challenging".

Having said that I see a lot of good sense in some of your suggestions above, but IME putting anything into practice is always more difficult that it is first imagined.
Cheers
Steve

[Adrian Kelland]

Is that from the Branch Officers Handbook? My understanding has always been that if folk don't consult the DO about their diving activities and are using all their privately-owned equipment that is doesn't qualify as a "branch dive" and there is no DO liability.

Steve

I could be that the DO would be liable if the incident was a result of poor training in that DO's branch.

Also what if the diver had never been told that doing their own thing might not be such a good idea?

Adrian

[edward haynes]

Just some points.

BSAC Rule 3 requires "A Branch shall adopt Bye-laws not in conflict with the Memorandum and Articles of Association of BSAC ..."

The recommendation is Branches DO NOT elect a TO, this position is appointed by the DO. The DO gets their authority from the NDO, not the Branch committee, for Training and Diving activities.

However, the idea of training for Branch Officers is not new. Straight after the AGM in 2001 HQ ran a workshop for Branch Officers - only about 40 people turned up, of that 4 wanted information on how to run the branch membership. don't know the figures for DO, but it wasn't much better.

Edward

[John Williams]

Hello, if the Regions were to offer training on how to be a TO, DO & Chair person, how many would be interested?

Regards Mike


The Regions do offer this sort of training ...in many formats.

1) The Regional Branch Officers Conference is not just a get-together. It's an opportunity to share experiences - good and bad - and to discuss solutions.

2) Every Region is there to provide whatever help branches ask for (within reason)

3) Regions formally appoint highly qualified people to help branches train people to higher diving and instructor grades:

a) All have preparation coordinators for FCD, OWI, AI and NI grades.
b) All regions have co-ordinators for advice on rebreathers, REDS, SDCs

These peole are not there just to do the paperwork and talk a good story ... they are there to provide practical help and advice to branches - and particularly to branch officers!

Within the Regions many of the Coaches work on the ITS - and at every ITS training event students should be directed to their regional co-ordinator who will help them to prepare for the next exam. There will be several people local to you who are prepared to help you in any way that you need it.

So what is the uptake like?
variable
To be fair not everyone knows about the support that is available. That is because they don't show up when invited to branch officer's conferences, don't attend DOC, the AGM and don't ask for help from the Coaching Scheme to help resolve issues at branch level.

Your Area Coach would be DELIGHTED to eceive an invitation to come and explain all this in person - and to help you design and implement a practical solution to whatever your problems are....call them!

John
BSAC Area Coach

[John Williams]

Darin,

Since the DO is responsible for all diving and safety issues - and safe diving arises from good, safe instruction and marshalling - it is impossible to give responsibility for safety to one person and responsibility for training to another.

The DO is therefore responsible for both - and if they feel it necessary they can appoint a TO to support the training aspect of the DOs role.

All DOs have to be a BSAC Instructor. If they are not either an AD or an NQI (preferably OWI) then they are only an Acting DO. Only branches who have properly qualified instructors are given "Training Branch" status. Those without NQIs should not be training divers.

ALL DOs, all instructors and all first class divers are invited to DOC. All branch officers are invited to Rregional Branch Officer's Conferences. All instructors are invited to help teach on Regional Coaching Scheme Events - where they are kept fully up-to-date and give/receive constructive feedback to all present.
Divers (who may not be instructors/high grades) are invited to join in the REDS scheme to hone their diving and expedition skills and return to the branch with fresh ideas.
All divers are encouraged to attend SDCs - which are run by senior instructors to the highest standards and with right up-to-the minute techniques within the Coaching Scheme. If they are instructors they can then be assessed as competent to take the new skills they have learnt back to the branch as an approved instructor.
The AI training/exam has just been altered to place more emphasis on the development of other divers and instructors at branch level - and the Regions have all apppointed someone to support the efforts of any OWI who wishes to prepare for AI.

This is why branches cannot elect a TO - it is not permitted by BSAC rules (for the good reasons mentioned above)

This is the ongoing training and support available to your DO/TO/CP and all other instructors/divers.

What more would you like?
Ask for it specifically - through the proper channels (that is ask your Area Coach to enter your comments onto a Branch Visit Report Form) and the BSAC will do everything that it can to support your requirements.


John
BSAC Council Membserhip Services Working Group Member
Area Coach

[Steve Walker]

I could be that the DO would be liable if the incident was a result of poor training in that DO's branch.

Also what if the diver had never been told that doing their own thing might not be such a good idea?

Adrian

Fair points, hence the good sense of having a well defined branch constitution/bye-laws which cropped up in another thread.

Quality of training may be a difficult one to assess, e.g. if you were DO and you knew you, or other Instructors, had taught correct dive planning i.e. dive conduct slate, comparison of tables with computers etc, but something goes FUBAR because someone didn't follow these planning procedures, I'd think you'd be on fairly solid ground.

As for the second point, I've only been in two different clubs so wouldn't claim to know what is the average attitude to this, but I believe teaching this is implicit, so 'caveat emptor' to any DO that didn't.

AISI BSAC has provided all the necessary information via the Branch Officers Handbook, Safe Diving Practice pamphlet and DTP info etc so as long as you've got access to copies and make sure you're familiar with their contents you should be safe.

Of course as the saying goes "there's no such thing as a foolproof system, anything is possible to a sufficiently talented fool" ;)
Cheers
Steve

[John Williams]

BSAC Rule 3 requires "A Branch shall adopt Bye-laws not in conflict with the Memorandum and Articles of Association of BSAC ..."

The recommendation is Branches DO NOT elect a TO, this position is appointed by the DO. The DO gets their authority from the NDO, not the Branch committee, for Training and Diving activities.

This is more than a recommendation Edward. The NDO has delegated this responsibility to the elected branch DO. The DO may choose to appoint a TO. The responsibilities of the DO cannot be changed without the permission of HQ ...and it is NEVER given (for reasons already mentioned elsewhere).

Branches who elect a TO are therefore operating outside BSAC Rule 3 and set themselves up for all sorts of problems should they be unfortunate enough to have either;

1) an incident
2) disagreeemnts between DO and TO

Bottom line - the TO cannot be elected by a BSAC branch.
TOs are appointed by the branch DO

If a branch expresses a desire for the DO to declare his nomination for TO before any election I guess that this would be acceptable - but the DO can still hire and fire the TO at will.

Though a DO who does so with any regularity will probably not be elected for a second term.

John

[TerryH]

But what if the club doesnt like the DO's decision?

In our club, while we follow BSAC doctrine and let the DO
appoint the TO, it is then put to a vote at the AGM
to "approve" his choice. That way you at least have a way of
stopping DO/TO cliques which can become very dictatorial.

TerryH

[petem]

In our club, while we follow BSAC doctrine and let the DO
appoint the TO, it is then put to a vote at the AGM
to "approve" his choice. That way you at least have a way of
stopping DO/TO cliques which can become very dictatorial.

You could also do it the other way round with the AGM voting for a recommended TO and the DO having the right to veto the appointment if the DO did not think the TO up to the job. This is effectively what we do.

Pete

[iainmsmith]

But what if the club doesnt like the DO's decision?

In our club, while we follow BSAC doctrine and let the DO
appoint the TO, it is then put to a vote at the AGM
to "approve" his choice. That way you at least have a way of
stopping DO/TO cliques which can become very dictatorial.

But then the club is second-guessing the DO and has the ability to disapprove his choice as to whom he delegates his responsibilities. They don't have that authority.

The way round it is to be very specific in your Branch Bye Laws that the Branch may, by election, nominate a prefered candidate for the post of TO for the DO's consideration and to be equally specific that nothing in that process requires the DO to pay that recommendation any attention whatsoever.

Iain

[iainmsmith]

All DOs have to be a BSAC Instructor. If they are not either an AD or an NQI (preferably OWI) then they are only an Acting DO

Point of information - the DO has to be and AD. It is _recommended_, but not required, that they be an NQI (unless things have changed since the most recent BOH). There are specific provisions within the BOH which spell out how a non-instructor DO may award qualifications.

Also - your picture of your Regional setup is not necessarily representative of anything other than your Region.

Iain

[John Williams]

Also - your picture of your Regional setup is not necessarily representative of anything other than your Region.

Iain

My picture is representative of one of a number of possible ideals...it is not necessarily representative of reality!


However it certainly will not become reality if no-one asks for it.

John

;-))))

[iainmsmith]

:=Also - your picture of your Regional setup is not necessarily representative of anything other than your Region.
:=
:=Iain

My picture is representative of one of a number of possible ideals...it is not necessarily representative of reality!


However it certainly will not become reality if no-one asks for it.

John

;-))))

In which case may I sign up for your version of reality!

Iain

[Steve Walker]

Darin
having just learned something fairly fundamental, I take it ALL back, yes there is a very good argument for some kind of training, or AISI informing, course for people who are going to be branch officers.
Regards
Steve

[John Williams]

Darin
having just learned something fairly fundamental, I take it ALL back, yes there is a very good argument for some kind of training, or AISI informing, course for people who are going to be branch officers.
Regards
Steve

And it's out there for anyone who asks for it!

However...if it was made compulsory...how many branches would have officers?

it is hard enough to get someone to stand without putting conditions and training courses in their way.

john

[darin edmunds]

:=Darin
:=having just learned something fairly fundamental, I take it ALL back, yes there is a very good argument for some kind of training, or AISI informing, course for people who are going to be branch officers.
:=Regards
:=Steve

And it's out there for anyone who asks for it!

However...if it was made compulsory...how many branches would have officers?

it is hard enough to get someone to stand without putting conditions and training courses in their way.

john

John, what's out there?

Only by reviewing these pages and those associated with the instructor forum has certain pieces of information become apparent. In fact reviewing this forum and the instructors forum past and present seems to suggest there is a very good case for providing such training.

I personally do not think the regional to branch communication is very good and is at best haphazard. I and others have tried to contact the region with varying degrees of success and as far as I'm aware there are no regional guidance notes to branch management or instructing the instructor otherwise I would not have felt compelled to enter what I have within the forum.

My points remain:

1)There ought to be some sort of course (I'll agree with voluntary attendance) associated to key committee roles. I believe this will offer more benefits to the individual, the branch, interbranch/regional communication/network and ultimately the club. The only people it seems who are comfortable with the regional/area setup are those in it. We expect a lot of our committee members, in particular the DO however, whatever regional/area input you suggest is there is often not visible. As far as I'm concerned the current setup is fine providing there is no legal responsibility however, there is and it centers on 'duty of care'. If everyone had the same idea as to what this 'duty of care' entailed with respect to limitations then perhaps the DO's lot could be made easier.

2) There ought to be formal courses for instructors to attend to facilitate them instructing specialist areas such as Nitrox, O2, PRM (in fact all BSAC SDC's). The current mechanism of attendance then sign off is hit and miss. It is often very difficult to get on a course as assistant let olone signed off on one if the course originates from a branch different from your own. Formal courses will provide two key elements:
i) the student (instructor) and BSAC can be assured they have attended an approved course which should dispell any fears a branch might have when entertaining an outsider on a local SDC
ii) BSAC has the opportunity of raising the standards of what is being taught across the branch and regional boundaries.

What I would like to know is how to take this forward for committee review for a working party to take on or perhaps this has already happened and the results are published somewhere.

I do not subscribe to your point one why there can only be one person the DO and the TO should not be elected. I believe a formalisation in the roles will alleviate some of the confusion and enable training and qualification to be more efficient.

Regards

Darin

[Mike Halligan]

Darin,

I do not subscribe to your point one why there can only be one person the DO and the TO should not be elected. I believe a formalisation in the roles will alleviate some of the confusion and enable training and qualification to be more efficient.

You're entitled to your view, but my personal experience as elected ADO (i.e. not then AD and therefore not then eligible for election to DO) would suggest very strongly that the BOH is right and that your view would be ineffective.

The DO (or ADO) carries sole personal responsibility for matters of safety, training and assurance of both - as the delegate of the NDO. In order to be effective, that person also bears sole personal authority. The DO (ADO) may choose to sub-delegate the responsibility and to an extent the authority for training. However, it is beyond the capacity of the Branch membership to elect that delegate for him/her (BOH). Where they do so, it is unlikely to be a comfortable relationship.

Where the DO is allowed by membership and committee to sub-delegate responsibility and authority (without interference or criticism) the team works efficiently, effectively and economically to the benefit of all. Formalisation of roles is agreed between DO and delegate, varied from time to time in the light of experience and circumstance. You may visualise this as autocracy and consider it undemocratic, but there is an electorate (of one, the DO), the only person capable of deciding who is both suitable for the job and capable of working in the team. The democratic bit ended with the election of the DO to that unenviable position.

We ask a lot of our DOs, and we do not support them as much or as often as we should. I constantly wonder how and where we find replacements, having worn out each in succession.

Regards,

Mike
firmly 'of the ranks'
and helping out as OWI

[darin edmunds]

Darin,

:=I do not subscribe to your point one why there can only be one person the DO and the TO should not be elected. I believe a formalisation in the roles will alleviate some of the confusion and enable training and qualification to be more efficient.
:=
You're entitled to your view, but my personal experience as elected ADO (i.e. not then AD and therefore not then eligible for election to DO) would suggest very strongly that the BOH is right and that your view would be ineffective.

The DO (or ADO) carries sole personal responsibility for matters of safety, training and assurance of both as delegate of the NDO. In order to be effective that person also bears sole personal authority. The DO (ADO) may choose to sub-delegate the responsibility and to an extent the authority, but it is beyond the capacity of the membership to elect that delegate for him/her.

If we do not support our DOs, then where will we find their replacements?

Regards,

Mike
firmly 'of the ranks' as OWI

Hi Mike, I take your point but is this not a symptom of the current setup? I agree the DO should be whole heartedley supported as should anyone performing a committee role.

Cheers

Darin
an OWI until I get AI...(one day)

[Mike Halligan]

Hi Mike, I take your point but is this not a symptom of the current setup? I agree the DO should be whole heartedley supported as should anyone performing a committee role.

Cheers

Sorry, Darin,

I edited that whilst you were replying (very rude of me). I really believe we should be more careful to read, digest, discuss and consider the BOH. Certainly we should do so before we challenge the knowledge it contains, derived as it is from decades of experience in what is fundamentally a voluntary organisation. This applies to the membership in general but to committee members in particular.

Charles Handy's "Understanding Voluntary Organisations" is helpful, too, but a relatively heavy read for so light a tome.

IMHO, the crucial issue is that if the membership were to elect as TO someone who proves incompetent or incompatible, they can rectify this only after a year - which is a long time to have trainees hanging around. By the same token, electing the wrong DO is a very serious matter - but the mistake affects everyone all the time, so it is less likely that the elected DO will prove incompetent.

Equally, if the membership proves too demanding, the volunteer DO or TO can simply walk away - and where does the Branch go then? Too often they appoint a stand-in for the rest of the year and coerce someone at the AGM - without stopping to contemplate why the predecessor chose to walk.

Symptomatic of Branch behaviours, yes, but of a fault in the BOH, I doubt it.

Regards,

Mike

[John Williams]

Only by reviewing these pages and those associated with the instructor forum has certain pieces of information become apparent.

The information on what is available is published on the web for all to see. It is highlighted in written publications (the Programme of Events) which is now usually distributed to every member. Every ITS event highlights the Coaching Scheme and every ITS event/Coaching Scheme event has an Open Forum for you to discuss BSAC in general.

How else could we inform you of what is out there?
(I'm genuinely keen to hear your suggestions)


I personally do not think the regional to branch communication is very good and is at best haphazard.

I agree...but the communication from Branch to Region is FAR worse. Please try to help the BSAC structure to help you by asking your branch to request a visit from your Area Coach to explain exactly what they can offer to your members.

I and others have tried to contact the region with varying degrees of success and as far as I'm aware there are no regional guidance notes to branch management

The Branch Officer's Handbook does this from HQ...have you got one?
The Regions can however provide further guidance and support for Branch Officer's who need/request it.

or instructing the instructor
The whole of the ITS structure, and the ongoing support for those progressing through it that is provided by the Regions is all about instructing the instructor.
What else would be useful?

My points remain:

1)There ought to be some sort of course (I'll agree with voluntary attendance) associated to key committee roles.

There is simply not sufficient demand for it. However if you want one-one tutorials ...or your branch wants to call on the experience of those who have held many branch positions and who also work with many branch officers - just ask your Area Coach for help.

If everyone had the same idea as to what this 'duty of care' entailed with respect to limitations then perhaps the DO's lot could be made easier.

This is clearly defined within the DTP (as it relates to diving) and on ITS events (as it relates to instructing) - further guidance is given within the BoH. However AIUI the guidance provided within the BoH is being updated, expanded and simplified at this time. Similarly the handout given to all who attend the IFC (and is avaialble through the BSAC shop) "Teaching SCUBA" is also being re-written.


2) There ought to be formal courses for instructors to attend to facilitate them instructing specialist areas such as Nitrox, O2, PRM (in fact all BSAC SDC's). The current mechanism of attendance then sign off is hit and miss.

I really hope that people are not attending and getting signed off. That is certainly not what is supposed to happen. The "apprentice Instructor" is supposed to attend the course (to learn the info) and then return - working under the close supervision of a mentor, taking on gradually more responsibility until the Lead Instructor is happy to recommend to the Regional Coach that they have reached the required standard. The RC should then check this out with the "apprentice" and all those he/she worked with en route to approval. The mentoring role is not just making sure they were there - it is to make sure that they become competent enough for the Lead Instructor to recommend approval to the RC.

It is often very difficult to get on a course as assistant

The provision of Instructor development is one of the key accountabilities and performance indicators for the Coaching Scheme. Ask them for help and they will do whatever they can to provide it (makes them look good!)

Formal courses will provide two key elements:
i) the student (instructor) and BSAC can be assured they have attended an approved course which should dispell any fears a branch might have when entertaining an outsider on a local SDC

They can be reassured by the mentoring and approval process...as long as it is carried out properly (same could be said for a formal course). The formal course takes up yet another weekend for the volunteer instructor/assessors - not to mention the extra training that they would have to undergo to become instructors on these formal courses.

ii) BSAC has the opportunity of raising the standards of what is being taught across the branch and regional boundaries.

That's what the Regional Coaches and their teams are all about...but so often they get frustrated because branches do not want "interference". All that the Coaching Scheme offers is help and support in improving the quality of service ofered to branch members....why do so few seem to want to take it up????


What I would like to know is how to take this forward for committee review for a working party to take on or perhaps this has already happened and the results are published somewhere.

You write to the Coaching Scheme manager or the NDO and make your suggestions for a better way to deploy the volunteers currently working on the Coaching Scheme or within the ITS. You also provide your reasoning for altering the BSAC rules relating to the DO.


I do not subscribe to your point one why there can only be one person the DO and the TO should not be elected. I believe a formalisation in the roles will alleviate some of the confusion and enable training and qualification to be more efficient.

feel free to formalise the roles however you like and provide guidance to your branch DO. There is no confusion about the roles. The DO is elected and may choose to delegate responsibility to TO(s) or not - as they see fit.

Experience has shown, quite clearly, that there should only be one person in charge of safety. Good, safe divers only become such when they receive good, safe instruction - so training is the single most important safey factor in producing safe divers and therefore MUST come into the remit of the DO. If the DO chooses to delegate some of the tasks involved to others s/he cannot delegate the responsibilty - this remains with the DO!

Some of the best systems I have come across invlove the formalised delegation that successive DOs choose to continue:
an Entry level TO - to and inc. SD
An Advanced Core Training TO - DL upwards
An SDC TO - for all mainstream (included in DL and AD training options) and optional SDCs
The DO often retains TO responsibility for instructor grades ...because it is so key to safety

HTH


John

[Steve Greenham]

This means the BSAC must provide courses on how to be either a CP, DO or TO so that these people know and accept without reservation their obligations and limitations.

I'm interested that you only cite CP, DP and TO. Yours must be a very small branch.

Ours is a club of nearly 200 members, with premises that we lease from the council (including a nearly derelict open air swimming pool) and running a licensed bar. We are also a limited company (a condition of our lease).

That means the Secretary needs to fulfill the role of Company Secretary (liaison with Companies House, shuttle forms, notification of directors etc), the treasurer needs to submit formal accounts to Companies House and all of the committee are also directors with the responsibilities that brings.

The licensing magistrates require that they are notified of changes in Chair and Secretary and hold these individuals accountable for compliance with licensing laws. There is also the issue of applying to the court for extensions.

The premises officer has all the issues of managing a large, aging clubhouse (complying with the terms of the lease, negotiating rent reviews, fire, risk and maintenance assessments of the buildings etc etc).

In comparison the DO and TO have it easy and the chair is little more than a figurehead who (nominally) manages meetings - that's not to decry our chair by the way because he is also Boat Officer, Webmaster and Club Newsletter editor!

I've also been involved with reviewing our rules, constitution and M&As recently and its a nightmare. As you say, there is a need for training but a large club is little different from a small company so perhaps we should be looking for "mainstream" business training rather than to BSAC. The BSAC parts are trivial and have the great advantage that you don't get fined if you get it wrong!

Perhaps that's why so few of our 200 members are willing to stand for committee!

Steve Greenham
Secretary, St Albans SAC