Non-BSAC Committee members and Bye-Laws [Archive]

Neil Rossiter

18-10-2003, 09:43

We are BSAC 1045 in 'much safer than before' Kuwait.

We have recently admitted non-BSAC qualified members to our club, and this has prompted the debate about which Branch Committee positions should be open to all our members, and which should only be held by BSAC members.

We have plenty of 'logical' answers to this question, but I have unsuccessfully trawled the BSAC website, BSAC constitution and rules in search of guidance.

It also seems an appropriate time to update our (1996) branch Bye-Laws, but I don't seem to be able to find any suggestions on this one either.

Is there anyone who has trodden the same path and can point us in the right direction?

Many thanks

Neil Rossiter

David Walker

18-10-2003, 15:55

We have recently admitted non-BSAC qualified members to our club, and this has prompted the debate about which Branch Committee positions should be open to all our members, and which should only be held by BSAC members.

I was under the impression that all diving members should be BSAC qualified. That is the policy our club follows, and is why at the beginning of every year (we are a Uni club) we do a lot of crossovers for PADI and other divers. Surely if you have members who don't need to be BSAC qualified you are just a general diving club, not necessarily a BSAC club.

David

Nigel Hewitt

18-10-2003, 17:36

I was under the impression that all diving members should be BSAC qualified.

I became a BSAC 'General' member when already qualified (PADI/IANTD/TDI) and that was before I joined my local club. Clearly I couldn't hold any of the technical positions in my club that require a certain qualification but I dive with the club (sea sickness permitting - don't ask about today) and could serve in a non-technical roll. I don't see a problem.

nigelH

John Williams

18-10-2003, 18:10

Neil,

You can open your club to people with any sort of diving qualification (or no qualification at all as social members).

However when you open your BSAC club you do so on the basis that new members join the BSAC. You cannot be a diving member of a BSAC branch without joining the BSAC.

New members qualified under a different "code" do not need to do any further training under the BSAC (indeed they can continue their training outside the BSAC if they wish to do so). However they should only be permitted to dive to the level of their SALT (Statement of Alternative Training) equivalence to a BSAC diver grade.

If you follow these guidelines then everyone in the banch will be a BSAC member and therefore eligible to stand for the committee.

The only post that has any other "qualifying criteria" is that of DO. The DO should be a BSAC NQI - this is because they are responsible for the safety and conduct of training...and in a BSAC club the training offered is the BSAC Diver Training Programme.

The DO appoints a TO (you cannot elect a TO under BSAC rules) and the BSAC recommends ...for the same reasons...that the TO is also a BSAC NQI.

This guidance can be found in the "Articles of Association" and within your own branch byelaws. If you have removed reference to this issue from your own byelaws then you have done so without the required reference to HQ ...and therefore the change is disqualified.

HQ will be pleased to provide you with a copy of the last set of byelaws you supplied to them (which, by definition, is the currently valid set of byelaws).

In short -

All members of a BSAC branch MUST be members of the BSAC and can therefore stand for any Branch Committee position (except DO - for which you must ALSO be a BSAC NQI).

You may not accept diving members into your branch without them joining the BSAC.

HTH

John

Neil Rossiter

18-10-2003, 20:38

Very interesting, John!

Thank you for the clarification.

Clearly the first place for us to start is to get HO's version of our bye-laws, and we can develop it from there. Our current Bye-laws do make extensive reference to the BSAC rules and it stipulates which clauses we cannot change without reference to HO, so we will see if any mistakes have been made in the past.

I had previously scoured the 'Rules of The BSAC - September 1998' and the Articles of Association, but without being able to extract the correct information.

Kind regards

Neil

Philip Smith

18-10-2003, 20:39

The DO appoints a TO (you cannot elect a TO under BSAC rules)

Election of a TO is not against BSAC Rules as such, but the Branch Officers' Handbook advises strongly that "the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".

Philip Smith

Neil Rossiter

18-10-2003, 20:44

Yes, David, I follow your point.

Neil Rossiter

18-10-2003, 20:47

Election of a TO is not against BSAC Rules as such, but the Branch Officers' Handbook advises strongly that "the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".

Clearly, I need to track down the Branch Officers' Handbook!

Neil

John Williams

18-10-2003, 21:39

:=The DO appoints a TO (you cannot elect a TO under BSAC rules)

Election of a TO is not against BSAC Rules as such, but the Branch Officers' Handbook advises strongly that "the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".

Philip Smith

Beg to differ here!

Even your quote says "The TO should be appointed by the DO".

Since the DO is clearly responsible for all training and safety issues within a branch and weilds powers and responsibilities delegated from the BSAC NDO - that cannot be challenged by anyone within the branch (except at re-election) then the branch cannot elect a TO that the DO does not accept as someone to whom s/he wants to delegate the responsibility for training to.

The role of TO clearly falls within the remit of DO...but the DO has the power to delegate... to someone that the DO respects and trusts to carry out the role properly. The Branch cannot impose someone who the DO does not respect and trust to do the job onto him/her.

The branch may decide that the TO position is not a committee position or has no voting rights within the branch mamagement structure (if it fears the DO post is getting too powerful).

The branch may hold elections to recommend a candidate for TO to the DO (which can be rejected) - but the branch cannot appoint a TO.

John

iainmsmith

18-10-2003, 22:26

:=The DO appoints a TO (you cannot elect a TO under BSAC rules)

Election of a TO is not against BSAC Rules as such, but the Branch Officers' Handbook advises strongly that "the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".

Not so. The Diving Officer is ultimately responsible for all Branch diving activities (including training). Anyone to whom he chooses to delegate responsibility can therefore only be someone of his choice, not someone forced upon him.

The Branch may nominate a preferred candidate by election for the job of TO, but the DO is under no obligation whatsoever to accept that recommendation and can choose to appoint anyone they like, even if that individual did not stand for the job or was not the Branch's preferred candidate.

Iain

tony dwyer

19-10-2003, 01:20

:=The DO appoints a TO (you cannot elect a TO under BSAC rules)

Election of a TO is not against BSAC Rules as such, but the Branch Officers' Handbook advises strongly that "the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".

Philip Smith

The new addition (Oct 2003) states- "A Training Officer ? Appointed by the Branch Diving Officer to manage training in the Branch. As stated in the Branch Diving Officer?s role, ultimate responsibility within the Branch rests with the Branch Diving Officer. Therefore the Branch Diving Officer shall appoint the Training Officer. The Training Officer is not a mandatory member of the Branch committee. This does not preclude individuals already members of the Branch committee from also holding this appointment. "

Since various existing branch constitutions may be at odds with this change, it could be unenforceable.

The real point is that the D/O is an elected officer. The membership therefore have the final say in everything!

Hmm?

John Williams

19-10-2003, 02:53

Since various existing branch constitutions may be at odds with this change, it could be unenforceable.

If this is so then the branch has changed it's constitution without reference to BSAC HQ (their constitution at formation as a BSAC branch requires it - and expressly forbids changes to the byelaw relating to the DO and their responsibilities).
This would render those changes invalid...and therefore unenforceable.

If a branch has got it wrong this does not mean that they will (or must) get away with it.

John

tony dwyer

19-10-2003, 12:37

:=Since various existing branch constitutions may be at odds with this change, it could be unenforceable.

If this is so then the branch has changed it's constitution without reference to BSAC HQ (their constitution at formation as a BSAC branch requires it - and expressly forbids changes to the byelaw relating to the DO and their responsibilities).
This would render those changes invalid...and therefore unenforceable.

If a branch has got it wrong this does not mean that they will (or must) get away with it.

John

An earlier post from Philip Smith quoted (presumably from an older edition (which unfortunately I do not have to hand);

"the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".

'Should' indicates a recommendation, not an absolute. Some clubs may have taken a different, but no less valid view on the appointment of the Training Officer. If the process in enshrined in their own constitution, forcing a change is not necessarily an option.

Adrian Kelland

19-10-2003, 13:12

'Should' indicates a recommendation, not an absolute. Some clubs may have taken a different, but no less valid view on the appointment of the Training Officer. If the process in enshrined in their own constitution, forcing a change is not necessarily an option.

My understanding of the word 'should' (shall, will etc) means that that the TO must be appointed by the DO. 'Could' would indicate the optional state.

I don't think the 10 Commandments are intended to be optional ;-)

Adrian

terryh

19-10-2003, 13:35

edward haynes

19-10-2003, 15:31

Nigel Hewitt

19-10-2003, 16:23

'Should' indicates a recommendation, not an absolute. Some clubs may have taken a different, but no less valid view on the appointment of the Training Officer.

Agreed. Looking at HMG, the people with the best possible legal advice available. The Highway Code uses 'must' for legal requirements and 'should' for best practice.

nigelH

John Williams

19-10-2003, 17:51

:=
:=:=Since various existing branch constitutions may be at odds with this change, it could be unenforceable.
:=
:=If this is so then the branch has changed it's constitution without reference to BSAC HQ (their constitution at formation as a BSAC branch requires it - and expressly forbids changes to the byelaw relating to the DO and their responsibilities).
:=This would render those changes invalid...and therefore unenforceable.
:=
:=If a branch has got it wrong this does not mean that they will (or must) get away with it.
:=
:=John

An earlier post from Philip Smith quoted (presumably from an older edition (which unfortunately I do not have to hand);

"the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".

'Should' indicates a recommendation, not an absolute. Some clubs may have taken a different, but no less valid view on the appointment of the Training Officer. If the process in enshrined in their own constitution, forcing a change is not necessarily an option.

If they have changed the content of "Byelaw number 8: The Diving Officer" in their constitution than a branch has done so illegally. BSAC HQ would NEVER condone a change to this byelaw and it is specifically listed as one you cannot change without reference to HQ.

If it was "enshrined" then it was done so illegally - and therefore is not valid.

John

John Williams

19-10-2003, 17:53

You can sort of have it both ways if the DO's decision is
ratified at the AGM. That way the DO gets to choose who he
thinks he can work with and the members get to veto that choice
if they feel that its wrong or too cliquy.

It's not a direct election, but we do it this way and it covers
BSAC regs without cutting out the membership completely.

Good compromise.

TerryH

Not an acceptable compromise Terry.

The DO cannot have the decision to appoint the TO he prefers overturned by anyone.

The opposite compromise is better. The branch hold a ballot to choose which person they would like to recommend to the DO...but give the DO the final veto.

John

John Williams

19-10-2003, 17:56

Always controversy when a quote is taken out of a complete sentence or paragraph.

The full wording is from the yet to be issued BOH:

As such it cannot be relied upon, as there is always a chance the wording will be changed prior to issue.

Edward

Edward,

Are you trying to tell me that the powers of the NDO, as delegated to the branch DO might be compromised by the wording of the new BOH?

I find that VERY hard to beleive.
However - this controversy is something that I hope the new BOH will remove for good. I trust that you have made the wording totally unambiguous and done so in Plain English.

John

tony dwyer

19-10-2003, 18:22

:=You can sort of have it both ways if the DO's decision is
:=ratified at the AGM. That way the DO gets to choose who he
:=thinks he can work with and the members get to veto that choice
:=if they feel that its wrong or too cliquy.
:=
:=It's not a direct election, but we do it this way and it covers
:=BSAC regs without cutting out the membership completely.
:=
:=Good compromise.
:=
:=TerryH
:=

Not an acceptable compromise Terry.

The DO cannot have the decision to appoint the TO he prefers overturned by anyone.

John

Yes he can. If the club aren't happy, they go for a vote of no confidence and he gets deposed. This happened a few years ago in my club, though for different reasons.

As I said earlier, in the end the club has the final voice.

regards

Tony

tony dwyer

19-10-2003, 18:31

:=:=
:=:=:=Since various existing branch constitutions may be at odds with this change, it could be unenforceable.
:=:=
:=:=If this is so then the branch has changed it's constitution without reference to BSAC HQ (their constitution at formation as a BSAC branch requires it - and expressly forbids changes to the byelaw relating to the DO and their responsibilities).
:=:=This would render those changes invalid...and therefore unenforceable.
:=:=
:=:=If a branch has got it wrong this does not mean that they will (or must) get away with it.
:=:=
:=:=John
:=
:=An earlier post from Philip Smith quoted (presumably from an older edition (which unfortunately I do not have to hand);
:=
:="the TO should be appointed by the Branch Diving Officer".
:=
:='Should' indicates a recommendation, not an absolute. Some clubs may have taken a different, but no less valid view on the appointment of the Training Officer. If the process in enshrined in their own constitution, forcing a change is not necessarily an option.

If they have changed the content of "Byelaw number 8: The Diving Officer" in their constitution than a branch has done so illegally. BSAC HQ would NEVER condone a change to this byelaw and it is specifically listed as one you cannot change without reference to HQ.

If it was "enshrined" then it was done so illegally - and therefore is not valid.

John

Nope! This afternoon I read an old edition of the BOH. It was not an absolute, merely a recommendation.

The paragraph that I quoted in my ealier post was taken directly from the new BOH.

Our club was formed over 30 years ago and its constitution was presumably modelled on BSAC guidelines at the time. There have been very few changes since. If any change was required by headquarters, it would have to be approved by the membership at an AGM or EGM. The possibility exists that the club might reject such changes. Despite being a member branch of BSAC it is an entity in its own right. Under the direct control of its members via the committee.

edward haynes

19-10-2003, 18:44

John

No. I was (and am still) concerned about reference being made to documents that haven't been issued. there is always the chance, all be it small, that what does out is different.

The new BOH does state the Branch Diving Officer appoints the Training Officer, if one is required. Therefore the word ?should? is used as "will" could be interpreted as a requirement to have a Training Officer, weather wanted or not.

Edward

Vic

19-10-2003, 19:31

> The new BOH does state the Branch Diving Officer appoints the
> Training Officer, if one is required. Therefore the word
> ?should? is used as "will" could be interpreted as a requirement
> to have a Training Officer, weather wanted or not.

Isn't this how ambiguity creeps in?

Why not just say what we mean? "If the post of Training Officer is required, that appointment will be made by the Branch Diving Officer"...

HTH

Vic.

Vic

19-10-2003, 19:34

edward haynes

19-10-2003, 19:44

Thanks Vic

Will steal your words for one of the early amendments.

It's easy when you see it in print.

Edward

Why not just say what we mean? "If the post of Training Officer is required, that appointment will be made by the Branch Diving Officer"...

HTH

Vic.

terryh

19-10-2003, 21:18

The DO cannot have the decision to appoint the TO he prefers overturned by anyone.

Of course it can. The members can easily oust the DO, any vote
against his decision is in effect a vote of no confidence in
his choice. If he doesnt like it then he can resign.
It's that simple.

The opposite compromise is better. The branch hold a ballot to choose which person they would like to recommend to the DO...but give the DO the final veto.

No it's not better. The DO may have good reasons for appointing
an individual that may not be the most favorite of members
choice. At least allowing the DO to choose first, gives him both
the chance to pick who he feels he can work with (reccomended
candidates may not) and still give the membership choice in ensuring such a decision is workable in there eyes.

This doesnt go against BSAC regs in any way as the DO still
picks the TO.

"Supplying" the DO with approved candidates is not a free
choice.

TerryH

Adrian Kelland

19-10-2003, 22:48

> I don't think the 10 Commandments are intended to be optional
> ;-)

That's why the 10 Commandments don't use the word "should"; they use the words "shall" or "shalt" (depending on version...)

"Should" is a very dangerous word; it is open to misinterpretation. Best avoided, really...

Vic.

Agreed Vic.

The word 'should' derives from 'shall'. We only misinterpret it because we incorrectly use the word as a synonym for 'could'.

Adrian

Philip Smith

20-10-2003, 00:12

Beg to differ here!

Even your quote says "The TO should be appointed by the DO".

Yes, but that quote is from the 2000 edition of the Branch Officers' Handbook: the BOH is guidance, not Rules.

Since the DO is clearly responsible for all training and safety issues within a branch and weilds powers and responsibilities delegated from the BSAC NDO - that cannot be challenged by anyone within the branch (except at re-election) then the branch cannot elect a TO that the DO does not accept as someone to whom s/he wants to delegate the responsibility for training to.

I agree that it is not a good idea to elect a TO, given the responsibilities of the DO; all I am saying is that election of a TO is not specifically forbidden by the Rules of the BSAC (nor by the Memorandum and Articles of Association).

Philip

Philip Smith

20-10-2003, 00:26

:=Since various existing branch constitutions may be at odds with this change, it could be unenforceable.

If this is so then the branch has changed it's constitution without reference to BSAC HQ (their constitution at formation as a BSAC branch requires it - and expressly forbids changes to the byelaw relating to the DO and their responsibilities).

That is from the wording of the model bye-laws, but as I understand it, it is not a requirement that a branch adopt the model bye-laws, only that they adopt bye-laws not in conflict with the Rules or the Memorandum and Articles of Association, and which make some specified basic provisions for branch management(Rule 3).

Philip Smith

Vic

20-10-2003, 10:00

> The word 'should' derives from 'shall'.

Although both words derive from the same stem, "shall" is in the indicative mode, whereas "should" is in the subjunctive[1]. The subjunctive is frequently used to indicate desire or doubt about the actual outcome of an event, and it is this that introduces ambiguity when the word is used inthings like SDPs...

Like I said, "should" is a dangerous word...

Vic.

[1] It's more a pseudo-subjunctive; the actual grammar of English has largely been lost. We no longer conjugate most verbs, for example, but the usage mechanisms are still there, and really very similar to most romance languages, with a bit of teutonic root thrown in ;-)

terryh

20-10-2003, 13:48

Unlike the Instructor Manual, I really hope that the new BOH is
proof read first by a random selection of BSAC members (not all NQI's etc) prior to full release.

BSAC still dont fully utilise one of it's main assests, it's
members.

On the same grammar lines. I dont think we are the only Uni
club who have a large intake of non-UK students where english
is not ther first language.

So it's worth reminding everybody that if WE struggle at times
to interpret these documents, how do these overseas visitors
cope?

Again maybe it's prudent to have a couple of "visitors" as part
of a proof reading group, so that the need for the obligatory
BSAC "interpretation" is removed (or at least reduced) once and
for all.

Far better (and easier) to sort this out now, then after it's
been printed.

TerryH

Philip Smith

20-10-2003, 14:23

Unlike the Instructor Manual, I really hope that the new BOH is
proof read first by a random selection of BSAC members (not all NQI's etc) prior to full release.

I hope that the new BOH is to be scrutinised prior to publication by someone with a command of formal written English. In my opinion, the existing BOH is one of BSAC's best publications. I really hope the new one will be to the same standard. However, the two excerpts we have seen recently (on dual membership and on DO/TO responsibilities) give cause for concern, particularly when we are told there is little chance of further editing before publication.

Philip Smith

John Williams

20-10-2003, 20:22

Yes he can. If the club aren't happy, they go for a vote of no confidence and he gets deposed. This happened a few years ago in my club, though for different reasons.

As I said earlier, in the end the club has the final voice.

regards

Tony

I've no problem with that...because once the branch has voted it's lack of confidence in the DO....he's no longer a DO.

You cannot impose a TO on an incumbent DO.

John

John Williams

20-10-2003, 20:27

As alreadu stated:

If the branch ousts the DO because they don't like the way s/he manages their responsibility...then they are no longer a DO.

Supplying the DO with preferred candidates allows the branch to state a preference...the DO is in no way obliged to select from that list. What this does is allow the branch to influence a decision taken by their elected DO - it does not allow them to make it for him/her.

Having the DO choose someone and then having that vetoed by the branch IS against the rules...because the branch is, in effect, making the decision.

John

(I've finished posting to this subject - not because I feel I am losing a debating point. There is no debate here - the DO appoints a TO...it's in the rules and cannot bechanged by a branch. Subject closed)

John Williams

20-10-2003, 20:36

Despite being a member branch of BSAC it is an entity in its own right. Under the direct control of its members via the committee.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No disagreement there.

As long as it continues to follow the rules of the BSAC. If it does not then it is not entitled to remain within the parent organisation.

You may do anything to change the local management of the branch...as long as BSAC HQ gets the opportunity to ensure that these changes do not conflict with the BSAC Articles of Asscoiation.

It is for this reason that the BSAC has ALWAYS provided model byelaws and required any affiliated branch to notify them of changes so that they could be "approved".

If you have not notified BSAC HQ of the changes and included a copy of the new contstitution together with the minutes of the General Meeting that adopted the changes - then the changes are simply not valid.

BSAC HQ holds the definitive copy of YOUR branch's byelaws. Anything else could be something that someone knocked up a decade or so ago and has been passing off as the real thing.

Long term use does not infer legitimacy.

John

John Williams

20-10-2003, 20:44

:=:=Since various existing branch constitutions may be at odds with this change, it could be unenforceable.
:=
:=If this is so then the branch has changed it's constitution without reference to BSAC HQ (their constitution at formation as a BSAC branch requires it - and expressly forbids changes to the byelaw relating to the DO and their responsibilities).

That is from the wording of the model bye-laws, but as I understand it, it is not a requirement that a branch adopt the model bye-laws, only that they adopt bye-laws not in conflict with the Rules or the Memorandum and Articles of Association, and which make some specified basic provisions for branch management(Rule 3).

Philip Smith

Absolutely correct!

A branch may alter those byelaws (I made alterations to them for my branch to choose to adopt - which they did - at our inaugral meeting).

However you must let BSAC have a copy of your altered bye-laws (or you totally new set) so that they may satisfy themselves that a BSAC bracnh does not have rules in conflict with those of the BSAC itself. BSAC HQ were happy with the changes my branch made and we have a letter to say so - as well as a registered copy of those modified byelaws on file at HQ (to prevent arguments about what version is valid years down the line)

If you make any changes to the set of byelaws approved by BSAC at formation (the model set, or your own set) then you must inform them and allow them the right to veto the change.

If you disagree with the BSAC decision and choose to change your byelaws anyway then you must understand that you risk losing your affiliation to the BSAC.

No member organisation can have members with published rules which are in conflict with those of the organisation itself.

HTH

John

terryh

21-10-2003, 00:49

:=(I've finished posting to this subject - not because I feel I am losing a debating point. There is no debate here - the DO appoints a TO...it's in the rules and cannot bechanged by a branch. Subject closed)

Well there you go John, seems the oracle has spoken.
Lets have a go at awakening him from his slumbers.

Branch officers handbook says that the DO appoints the TO.
No argument, all agreed. Yes?

The BOH also explains the procedure for questioning any
officers decision (including the DO's) at an AGM or EGM.

So at an AGM the DO can appoint the TO and the members can
indeed question that decision.

Subject closed!

TerryH

Philip Smith

21-10-2003, 21:29

(I've finished posting to this subject - not because I feel I am losing a debating point. There is no debate here - the DO appoints a TO...it's in the rules and cannot bechanged by a branch. Subject closed)

What the "rules" say, or at least the model bye-laws (and therefore the bye-laws of many branches), is that the DO is ultimately responsible for the safety of all training and diving activities in the branch. It would be against the "rules" to attempt to devolve any of that responsibility to someone else. However, the election of a TO does not, in itself, detract from the ultimate responsibility of the DO. Many branches elect an Equipment Officer to look after safety-critical equipment. That election does not make the DO any less responsible for safety.

The model bye-laws say that the DO "may delegate training duties to a Training Officer, who shall be responsible to him for the performance thereof". They do not say that the TO can not be elected. However, as noted earlier, electing a TO could lead to difficulties, because the DO could disagree with and ultimately reject the TO, who would then be in an elected position with no duties to perform. The BOH therefore recommends strongly against election of a TO, but I think uses the word "should" advisedly, because the Rules do not prohibit it.

The BSAC purposefully has very few Rules.

Philip Smith

Neilb

19-11-2003, 08:26

Neil Griffith - chairman RAHSAC, Oman
Neil Bedwin - chairman Muscat Divers, Oman
and now
Neil Rosssiter - Kuwait

Do you have to be named Neil to dive in the Middle East?

Bill Bird

19-11-2003, 11:30

:=We have recently admitted non-BSAC qualified members to our club, and this has prompted the debate about which Branch Committee positions should be open to all our members, and which should only be held by BSAC members.

I was under the impression that all diving members should be BSAC qualified. That is the policy our club follows, and is why at the beginning of every year (we are a Uni club) we do a lot of crossovers for PADI and other divers. Surely if you have members who don't need to be BSAC qualified you are just a general diving club, not necessarily a BSAC club.

David

David,

I was also under the impression that we had been encouraged to open up the branches to members of other agencies (could be wrong here - could someone at council clarify?)Do they have to members of BSAC to be in a branch?

Bill

Dave Bedenham

19-11-2003, 13:14

Well I'm in the Middle East & DO BSAC 2159 and named Dave, but you can call me Neil too, for the right price! Haha!

Safe Diving

Neil Griffith - chairman RAHSAC, Oman
Neil Bedwin - chairman Muscat Divers, Oman
and now
Neil Rosssiter - Kuwait

Do you have to be named Neil to dive in the Middle East?

mark allen

19-11-2003, 16:23

Sorry john U got this bit wrong The DO doses not need to be a NQI

The only post that has any other "qualifying criteria" is that of DO. The DO should be a BSAC NQI - this is because they are responsible for the safety and conduct of training...and in a BSAC club the training offered is the BSAC Diver Training Programme.

A Branch Diving Officer should hold at least the qualification of BSAC Advanced Diver. Ideally, they will also be a BSAC Nationally Qualified Instructor If they are not a Nationally Qualified Instructor, they will require an Nationally Qualified Instructor to supervise Branch instruction and assessments, and recommend candidates to the Diving Officer before he / she is able to grant a diving qualification.

If a Branch wishes and in the absence of a member meeting the terms of the foregoing paragraph willing to become Diving Officer, a lesser qualified member may be appointed as Acting Branch Diving Officer. However, an Acting Branch Diving Officer will not have the authority to award diving qualifications higher than those they hold themselves without further endorsement from an Nationally Qualified Instructor or a BSAC member who does hold such higher qualifications. If no Nationally Qualified Instructor is available, an Acting Branch Diving Officer will only be permitted to award qualifications to members on the recommendation of a BSAC Regional or Assistant Coach.

Mark Allen

terryh

19-11-2003, 17:51

Sorry john U got this bit wrong The DO doses not need to be a NQI
:=
:=The only post that has any other "qualifying criteria" is that of DO. The DO should be a BSAC NQI - this is because they are responsible for the safety and conduct of training...and in a BSAC club the training offered is the BSAC Diver Training Programme.

Well no he hasnt actually. Note that he says "should be a BSAC
NQI". The whole blindingly obvious point, is that if your DO is
not an NQI he is tied to the apron strings of someone who is.

That means every decison has to be ratified by a third party
and your non-NQI DO (in-effect) becomes a messenger boy.

The caveat of not being a NQI is ONLY because a club might not
have one and be in danger of folding. Hence third party help.

TerryH

ace mcalpine

09-12-2003, 11:37

Hi Neil! How's it going?
Our branch in Bahrain have several members who are not BSAC members. Our committee ruled that they could be members and dive with us, but not participate in any activity they're not qualified for (Deco, nitrox etc) and they cannot be branch committee members unless they become BSAC members also.
In practice this works very well with our transient diving population, and those who want to further their trainig, or 'have a piece of the BSAC pie' join up. This accounts for approx. 70 - 80% of other agency divers.
I would be really concerned if a non BSAC diver, as an elected committee member, was dictating branch policy etc to me as a BSAC member! It is a non-starter! Basic logic dictates that to be a committee member of a BS-AC branch, an initial pre-requisite is to be a member of the organisation!