And So It Begins

[EEL]

As seen in a posting on the commercial section:

"We will also be offering a new certification this year for trip leaders. This is not an instructor award. This course is for paddlers who find themselves organizing and leading trips either professionally or for club outings and would like to take advantage of the ACA insurance program. If your club is a Paddle America Club (PAC) it is recommended that trip leaders go through this training."

Perhaps one approach is to reimburse club members who successful take this class/training and consider them formal trip leaders thereby dispensing with the whole issue of TLT. Just an idle thought.

Ed Lawson

[Suz]

That would be a great solution. Perhaps that with some practice would do the job.

How would you do the "reimbursement".

Suz (who is just an interested party and not a decision maker on the board.)

[EEL]

>

>How would you do the "reimbursement".

>

Personally I would tie reimbursing the tuition costs to leading one club trip along with a promise to lead one club trip a year for some specified period upon successfully passing course.

I just mentioned this as it seemed to me when ACA created this certification it was predictable that ACA affiliated clubs would be "encouraged" to have trip leaders so certified and the underwriter for ACA insurance would add their two cents on the subject to further move folks in that direction. Thus my subject line.

Don't have an opinion about whether idea is a good one, but I surmise TLT is a topic fraught with "issues" and it would be an easy way out of the bramble bush so to speak. some might say cowardly way out.

Ed Lawson

[djlewis]

>Don't have an opinion about whether idea is a good one, but

>I surmise TLT is a topic fraught with "issues" and it would

>be an easy way out of the bramble bush so to speak. some

>might say cowardly way out.

No no, it's not cowardly...it's a good way out. Certification is good.. repeat after me... certification is good... certification is good... cer...umm...fi...ummmm...good good... yawwwn...good...bye.

--David

[Ben Fuller]

Where this began was the experienced whitewater and canoe trip leader that lost several kids I think in Florida several years ago. ACA realized that they had nothing in the courses other than Open Water Instructor etc that spoke to trip leading, which as most of you know is more about head and environmental skills than about paddling skills. On a more advanced level its what 5* is about. Even the basic instructor training is more about teaching than leading groups rescues etc. When the curriculum was being developed several of us who also guide and lead, helped develop curriculum. Many instructor trainers who offer Maine Guide training are letting people test for the ACA cert. Its not about the cert its about the knowledge. For clubs like NSPN with a vigerous internal trip leader training system there is likely little to be gained other than the insurance.

[bob budd]

Historically trip leader training was intended to address a least common denominator need for leadership skills. That is a leader was trained in formations, techniques, etc. that applied to most any trip. Specific skills for challenging conditions were the responsibility of the individual to acquire. Each trained leader was expected to assess their ability along with an informal peer review process of this assessment. Leaders were then allowed to lead trips according to their ability.

The cost of the training was included in the membership. Some time was spent in the classroom, more time was spent on the water, and then there was the dreaded "Scenarios Day". (Poor Andrew Binks was disappointed when noone open his hatches to flood the compartment only to release the spring-loaded "worms" from within.)

The materials for the training were developed over many years by such luminaries as Bob Burnett and Scott Camlin (many others who I've left out don't be upset). Last year it was documented so could be repeated this year. The big challenge is to get together the human resources to do the classroom and on-the-water work. Last year a process for formal assessment of leaders was instituted that devolved due a lack of these resources.

From the Osprey website (and not in any way saying these fees are unreasonable) "$250 -Basic Coastal IDW , $250 Basic Coastal ICE, $375 Open Water Coastal IDW, $375 Open Water ICE" we see that training is substantial as compared to membership dues. I think it would be impractical and unfair to refund the majority of this cost to an individual. Instead one of several methods would be to pay a nominal fee to a trained leader, to refund a percentage of the fee for leading each trip "as they go", etc. each to a cap.

Others provide services without thought of compensation; processing memberships, leading lake sessions in the summer, maintaining the website, etc. These prospective leaders need to accept that they are volunteering the bulk of this time and cost to the club and retain the benefits of the training for their personal and professional use outside the club.

[cathyfoley]

The clubs membership has dropped dramatically since 2003. I recently shared some of these statistics with the board and I know they are working very hard to correct the issues that have caused the decline. Absolutely the #1 reason is lack of "official" trips by the club. Much of the membership has the expectation that in participating in such trips, they are being led by a competent leader who has had some training.

I would strongly support the suggestion that there be some "tuition assistance" to instructors who pass the training and agree to lead "official trips" for the club at all levels.

[Brian Nystrom]

...is to end the club's affiliation with the ACA before they mandate their trip leader course. The introduction of the course last year was the first step. This year's "encouragement" of clubs to put their trip leaders through it is the second step. Anyone want to bet what will happen next year?

The ACA has been milking PAC clubs for every penny they can get and it's time that it stopped! NSPN members get virtually nothing in the way of benefits, yet $30 of the $35 annual dues goes to the ACA. For what? All members get is a magazine that few of them even want. The ACA insurance ONLY covers liability, which is ONLY a *potential issue for trip leaders and the Board. It doesn't benefit trip participants in any realistic way. It's a bad joke, to say the least and it has cost the club a lot of members, who simply aren't willing to pay for nothing. Who can blame them? People who feel that it's worthwhile to support the ACA can join on their own; there is no need for ACA membership to be part of being an NSPN member nor any REAL benefit to it.

Our internal Trip Leader Training worked extremely well for years, as it was tailored to the specific needs of the club. Unfortunately, it appears the risk/liability fiasco we've gone through combined with attempts to formalize the program are leading to its demise (that is unless there is an announcement forthcoming for this year's training). That would be a real shame, as it offered solid leadership and organizational training at no cost to the students. Given that many of our trained Trip Leaders dropped out when we mandated a formal assessment program last year, what it the likelihood that anyone will be willing to spend their time and money on the ACA course? I'd say it's about zero. How many official trips will be led then? A $250 ACA course is not the answer; reviving the Trip Leader Training is what the club needs.

*In the history of the club, there has never been a serious accident or a single insurance claim. The potential exists, but it is minute and has been completely blown out of proportion. Hundreds of other clubs operate just fine with no insurance at all. It's important to keep this in perspective.

[bob budd]

In past years the club was considered competition to/by some outfitters. By compensating leaders this perception is likely to grow. This should be considered in constructing whatever means the club chooses to increase its membership.

[RogerPollock]

On first glance, it seems like a good way to take the burden off the club for training and blessing its leaders, and a way to placate the pro-certification crowd both inside and outside the club. It certainly puts the burden financially onto the trip leaders, though.

And it really begins to make the club smell a lot less like a club and more like an outfitter, especially if money starts changing hands for training and per diem trip leading. To quote Cathy: “Much of the membership has the expectation that in participating in such trips, they are being led by a competent leader who has had some training.” I find this a bit scary. I think folks who have those expectations should go take a trip with ERBA.

To quote David: “repeat after me... certification is good... certification is good...” While this is true, it’s not the end all, be all, and certainly not the only way to do things. There are paddling clubs that are not corporations and that have no trip leaders, and are doing better and paddle more as a club than NSPN.

What about the following “what if’s?”:

What if the ACA trip leader training isn’t as good as the clubs current training? Sorry, the club’s training is pretty damn good, and I’ve taken the ACA IDW and some BCU training. Does certification then trump quality of content?

What do you do with the folks (like me and all the old trip leaders) who’ve already devoted six days and 48 plus hours to the clubs training? Subject them to yet more training, time, and now, oh joy, expense?

[EEL]

I apologize. I am stupid. Let it die.

I foolishly posted to suggest it seemed the handwriting was on the wall regarding where ACA was going with the trip leader cert. Then I stupidly stepped further into the goo by responding that it might be a resolution of the apparent TLT morass and suggestion the financial burden be eased by NSPN.

I must say I could not agree more with Roger ("I find this a bit scary. I think folks who have those expectations should go take a trip with ERBA."), but that is due to my expectations. Others are entitled to theirs. Which is why the private and formal club trip dichotomy makes sense to me. Perhaps all this sound and fury is the result of NSPN wandering in the wilderness looking for its soul or at least what it is and to whom it should direct its activities.

Seems the BOD has that job and there is nothing to suggest they are not at work given what they have done this year.

In the meantime, lets all just go paddle. If you would like more company than close friends, post it as a private trip. Who knows, the online persona may not be the persona on the paddle.

Ed Lawson

[RogerPollock]

Ed,

You're not stupid, for sure. Nor should the discussion die.

The idea is a good one, if the club's direction takes it further down the path of formality, requirements & certification - really the issue which has yet to be resolved.

[Johnny_Storm]

I don't know whay some people react so violently and adversely to any suggestion of formal instruction by certified instructors...

If the ACA wants trip leader training by competent instructors it is likely that trips being lead by incompetent leaders (and potential lawsuits) is the cause. Alas, people do sue.

Most outfitters do in-house "training" and most "guides" can handle level 2 trips (maybe) and are not ACA or BCU certified...

It does give one pause to wonder why NSPN opposes upgrading its programs by bringing in competent ceertified instruction.

[RogerPollock]

The idea would be to get away from the ACA . . . and all their requirements . . .

NSPN is a volunteer club. How could you require a volunteer to outlay money so they could volunteer their time for free? Does this happen anywhere else? Is there not something wrong with that picture?

The problem isn't with certification or prof instruction, per se. At least not for me. Hey, I'm doing it. But it's not for everybody for a variety of reasons. And requiring it excludes a whole host of otherwise competent people. Why would the club want to pigeonhole itself.

[DeCourcy]

>

>NSPN is a volunteer club. How could you require a volunteer

>to outlay money so they could volunteer their time for free?

>Does this happen anywhere else? Is there not something wrong

>with that picture?

Yes.. this happens throughout the martial arts community. People pay to practice their art, and after gaining experience, volunteer to teach others. They "pass it along". I thought that is one of the guiding principles of this club. That was one of my first exposures to this club... watching a pool session and watching the experienced help the inexperienced. Coming from a martial arts background, I thought it was great to see the selflessness of the instructors giving of themselves to others. I was and am thrilled to be a member just because of that spirit.

Jim.

[Suz]

Not replying to anyone in particular. Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject.

NSPN is a volunteer club and every year there is turnover as there should be. The TLT program that was put in place was high maintenance and had a high degree of reliance on the abilities (paddling and teaching) of the current volunteer staff. You can imagine how that might change from year to year.

TLT and therefore Trip Leaders are the one area of the club that has the most risk, it's where everything comes back to in the event that there is an incident on the water. The Board of Directors carries the ultimate responsibility as they "blessed" the program and the implementation of it including the trainers. No major incidents have happened but they could do and they have done so in the local paddling community. Society is litigious, would you want to serve on the board if ultimately you were the one responsible for everything?

Why not let someone else shoulder the responsibility of training the trip leaders? This removes the club from being the one that said that an individual is prepared to lead a group. Last year the club developed a set of criteria to lead trips, the implementation fell through as there wasn't enough time in the day to run assessments. Give TL's the criteria and if they feel they can meet it, great - let them choose to lead.

Let the process be clear on the website that TL's have taken the ACA course on being a trip leader and that in their opinion they meet the criteria established (provide the criteria) and are therefore a TL.

So how about reimbursing them for the training? Sure why not if it encourages trips. Let it be known that there is a method for this training to be paid back if you lead trips. Let's see if that encourages more trips being run.

And lastly NSPN is an ACA club. Yes it affords insurance to the club, board members and trip leaders if an incident happened. But in addition to that, it allows the pool sessions to take place. The Y's don't let the club use the pool if a current insurance certificate isn't in place. Same thing with the Gould Barn - need an insurance certificate because the club is renting instead of an individual.

If someone is unhappy with belonging to the ACA, then join a different club and move on. Simple decision, right?

Suz

[RogerPollock]

Well, gee, Suz, I guess that boils it right down, doesn't it: If your don't like it, why don't you just leave.

Certainly can't say it's a really friendly and democratic way to attract new trip leaders, or keep the old ones. And more stringent requirements haven't improved things thus far, have they? Only made them worse . . . Why not look at club model that IS working and producing trips, rather than ratcheting up one that doesn't?

[Suz]

Moving away from the ACA is a big change and certainly worthy of discussion. I don't think that it is a good option for the club to do in March. Dues have been paid and committments have been made.

What clubs do you see as good examples of a system that is working and why do you see them that way?

Suz

[RogerPollock]

ConnYak comes immdediately to mind. Bill themselves as a "non-profit club" vs a "non-profit corporation". Much more informal model. Leaderless. Trips are suggested anonymosly with nobody beholden to lead or even show up, like NSPN S&G's. I know they have a president. Don't know if they have further government.

What if NSPN wasn't a corporation? What if there was no board to sue? No leaders to train, or leaders to lead? No "official trips"? Certainly such ideas must make some shudder, those that built the thing up, but . . . it's doable elsewhere . . . And NSPN was much more lively paddling-wise when it was just a Yahoo message board.

Insurance is out there. As far as Gold Barn . . . I don't know. Pool sessions? Could hook up with a local outfitter and do a group buy as individuals, and probably make out cheaper. There's nothing the club does now that couldn't be done "unofficially". It's still a free country, and a group of people don't need to be a corporation to do a yoga class or a cold water workshop together.

It would put an end - I think - to all the crap, and let people paddle together again.

[bob budd]

For a variety of reasons official trips may be impractical for the club to continue to offer. Some can be seen in this thread.

What could the club do with a leaderless model?

Beginner workshops would serve to introduce new paddlers to paddling on their own, though not by their selves. This could follow or least based itself upon the existing leader classroom curriculum. Paddlers would learn about navigation, assessing an area for paddling challenges, etc. Leaderless events such as lake and pool sessions would suffice for basic skills including rescues.

From there members could pursue skills and trips amongst themselves. This has already taken place in the last few years as official trips fell off. Most of the time paddlers just need to know who they can go with and where they feel comfortable going.

Maybe the club gets a deal with a local outfitter to offer a gift certificate or reduced rates for trips. You get certified leaders, access to trips, the club doesn't pay for training or compete with outfitters, and members incur expense as they choose.

[Suz]

I put a > at the beginning of each of Roger's lines that he wrote. My responses below that.

>ConnYak comes immdediately to mind. Bill themselves as a "non-profit club" vs a "non-profit corporation". Much more informal model. Leaderless. Trips are suggested anonymosly with nobody beholden to lead or even show up, like NSPN S&G's. I know they have a president. Don't know if they have further government.

I have paddled with ConnYak and their club trips are not a model that I enjoy although I do like paddling with individuals there and do so every year. My issue is that they don't seem to have the same group mentality that NSPN trips have - perhaps it is simply our "culture" is different. I have never seen anyone left behind on a NSPN trip - have seen so with ConnYak trips. Just a different way of doing things than I prefer. At this point in my paddling, I don't care if I am left behind but I can imagine a point where I might have found it to be pretty scary.

>What if NSPN wasn't a corporation? What if there was no board to sue? No leaders to train, or leaders to lead? No "official trips"? ertainly such ideas must make some shudder, those that built the thing up, but . . . it's doable elsewhere . . .

Prior boards incorparated the club as a not for profit. It's in place, sure it can be changed or kept - that doesn't affect whether you have trip leaders or official trips. No official trips is where we are right now and people are asking for them along with asking for trip leader training...

>And NSPN was much more lively paddling-wise when it was just a Yahoo message board.

Yahoo message board is way before my time and I have been with the club at least five years.

>Insurance is out there.

Are you sure on the insurance? If so, what are the rates? Provide the info. I believe the BOD has looked into alternatives and they really aren't that good.

>As far as Gold Barn . . . I don't know. Pool sessions? Could hook up with a local outfitter and do a group buy as individuals, and probably make out cheaper.

Again - look into it before you say it. The local Y's require insurance when you have a group. Other alternative would be to have a local ACA instructor use their insurance and then sponsor the group that way. Why would (or should) they do that for free though?

>There's nothing the club does now that couldn't be done "unofficially". It's still a free country, and a group of people don't need to be a corporation to do a yoga class or a cold water workshop together.

Agreed.

>It would put an end - I think - to all the crap, and let people paddle together again.

No one who already paddles has stopped paddling because of the club.

The club format lets newbies learn in a safer environment and allows them to meet other paddlers. I really benefited from the format when I first began and would like to see it continue in some format.

Suz

[RogerPollock]

>Again - look into it before you say it.

We're just talking "what if's" and ideas here, Suz. I've not done nit-picking research on everything, for goodness sake. I guess the point is, if there's a will there's a way.

>The local Y's require insurance when you have a group. Other alternative would be to have a local ACA instructor use their insurance and then sponsor the group that way. Why would (or should) they do that for free though?

Huh?

All I'm saying is, just for instance, NESC had no shortage of pool sessions these past few winters, that even some club members took advantage of, just pool sessions, not instruction in the pool. Obvilusly, they have insurance to be able to do this, and obviously they charged people for it. Why couldn't a local kayaking club with no insurance simply direct its membership to such an outfitter? From what I saw, NESC's rates were quite reasonable, and not much more than what the club charges for pool sessions. Could work.

>Are you sure on the insurance? If so, what are the rates? Provide the info. I believe the BOD has looked into alternatives and they really aren't that good.

Am sure on the insurance? No. There was a discussion on another message board, with many clubs around the country chiming in, indicating there was insurance out there with similar coverage at a better value, with many indicating they were dropping the ACA. If our board looked into it and found otherwise, nothing has been said publicly. Perhaps they looked in the wrong place

You wrote: "TLT and therefore Trip Leaders are the one area of the club that has the most risk, it's where everything comes back to in the event that there is an incident on the water. The Board of Directors carries the ultimate responsibility as they "blessed" the program and the implementation of it including the trainers. No major incidents have happened but they could do and they have done so in the local paddling community. Society is litigious, would you want to serve on the board if ultimately you were the one responsible for everything?

Then you wrote:">What if NSPN wasn't a corporation? What if there was no board to sue? No leaders to train, or leaders to lead? No "official trips"? ertainly such ideas must make some shudder, those that built the thing up, but . . . it's doable elsewhere . . .

Prior boards incorparated the club as a not for profit. It's in place, sure it can be changed or kept - that doesn't affect whether you have trip leaders or official trips. No official trips is where we are right now and people are asking for them along with asking for trip leader training..."

Which still doesn't address the issue of needing protection for the board from law suits from official trips and trip leaders if there wasn't a board to sue.

>I have paddled with ConnYak and their club trips are not a model that I enjoy although I do like paddling with individuals there and do so every year. My issue is that they don't seem to have the same group mentality that NSPN trips have - perhaps it is simply our "culture" is different.

But it sure is a model that seems to be working . . . no? Maybe what's needed IS a different "culture".

[Brian Nystrom]

Pardon me Suz, but as I recall:

- It was you that started the whole risk/liability fiasco or at least you were the loudest voice at the time. I specifically remember a meeting where you stridently proclaimed "YOU COULD LOSE YOUR HOUSE!!!". It was in the middle of Trip Leader Training and it put an immediate damper on the students in the class, with the end result being that few, if any of them actually led any trips. Perhaps there were others proclaiming the same nonsense at the time, but you were the first one I heard it from.

- You were part of the small but vocal cadre that pushed hard for all Trip Leaders to have BCU 4* certifications. That started a huge battle at the first General Membership meeting and created a division in the club that ultimately resulted in Trip Leader training being "postponed" the following spring. The program has never recovered from the damage this caused.

To hear you now propose that perhaps the club doesn't need to be incorporated or doesn't need insurance really makes me wonder. I don't disagree with the idea at all, but I have to pause when I hear it from you. Have you undergone some form of "religious conversion" or something? It seems rather ironic that now that you're on the verge of realizing your original goal of formally certified instructors, you're also embracing the opposite position, don't you think? What exactly do you want these days?

I think it's important for others here to know the history of this mess.

IMO, the cost of being an ACA affiliate club is simply too high and it's driving people to other clubs with lower costs. With the Trip Leader Training program still in disarray, it's unlikely that there will be substantial numbers of official trips in the next year or two, which is one of the things that separated us from other clubs in the past. Given that, it's no wonder membership has plummeted.

I do agree with you that it's too late to do anything this year and that leaving the ACA immediately would do not good, since we've already given them their pound of flesh for the season.

There are other insurance alternatives available now and the Board has indicated that they're investigating them. It would be nice if they would keep us posted about what they've discovered. It would also be nice if they would make an announcement about Trip Leader Training, one way or the other.

[Nancy Hill]

Cathy said:

Absolutely the #1 reason is lack of "official" trips by the club. Much of the membership has the expectation that in participating in such trips, they are being led by a competent leader who has had some training.>

I am a new member and have not had the opportunity to paddle with any of you, yet. I am not really sure what the distinction is between an "official club trip" and a "private trip" other than the official trip has a trained (certified?) leader and is planned ahead of time. If that is correct, then is the "leader" of the private trip at some risk (not covered by ACA insurance)? The advantage of an "official trip" for me would be that it is planned ahead of time. Some of us cannot go on a (private) trip planned at the last minute. Couldn't we get around that by having some "private trips" that are planned ahead of time?

The term "private trip" may put some people off. If you do not know people in the club, the use of the word "private" may be intimidating.

As far as your view of people wanting to be on a trip with a competent leader, I care more about the capabilities of the people in the group as a whole and hope that they would be honest about their level of proficiency when choosing a "rated" trip. I do not see "private trips" with ratings. Why not?

Lastly, I do not believe that a trained non-certified person is necessarily less competent to lead a trip than a trained certified person.

-Nancy

[rick stoehrer]

undestand up top, at the front that i don't disagree with any of you...i have come to see both sides of this dilemna.

ideally TL's would be ceritified but that takes interest, money and time and you can't reasonably expect folks to shell out their own cash to guide for free for you....but the costs of that aca certification are such that you can't substantially defray the cost to your trip leaders from the club kitty. so really, it would seem that as an aca/pac it's coming to an impasse...especially if you think (as i do) that if they've introduced this training now, that it very well may become an insurance requirement later.

how do you get around that? that's been the real sticking point for awhile and the club needs to sort that out in it's own way. but that's a strategic problem - on a more tactical front...

if the feedback you are getting is accurate then whatever is happening isn't working....if the membership is down because of the dearth of "official" trips then it leads me to believe that either the membership IS looking for trip leaders to guide them or that folks are looking in, not seeing anything posted to the official trips/calendar section and never even get to the private message board to see that really, the club IS active. maybe some are seeing "private" trips and thinking "oooh, private, I'M NOT invited" and shying away from them not realising that these are open paddles with the same folks that would be on the "official" trips...there are a lot of different reasons why it might not be working....all that's known is that it isn't working.

in the meantime, if it doesn't violate club by laws amend the calendar section so that it isn't JUST official trips...that way you have something on the board to generate interest - or what about setting up a private trips calendar that members can access so that they can post their trips and there will BE SOMETHING to generate interest to the casual lurker/dropper in? set it up side by side in the calendar section?

aca/cam...whatever - none of it impacts your friedships, bonds and paddling in the least. this topic gets so heated sometimes though that it really, really turns folks off. i hate to see the place where i met so many people i care about flounder and lurch as it chews on this one. this club is a great meeting place!! remember that really we have things in common too besides just arguing ad nauseum with bits of electrons.