Home - About - Membership - News - Contact
SSS Consultation
Constitution of Snowsport Scotland:
Consultation with SSC
Update Oct 2011
I met with Jane Harvey and Sturat MacIntyre of SSS on 30 September. John Clayton was with me and Jacqui Stone (new Membership Director) was also in attendance. I was under the weather, which did not help the tenor of a rather irascible meeting.
Thinking since about the outstanding issues, my comments are:
1. Charitable status: I was asked several times what disadvantages I saw in SSS being a charity. The additional overheads they regard as minimal. If SSS's expenditure proves not to be charitable, then we can de-register. If the Skiers Trust concept is exposed, the consequences are disastrous. On the other hand, SSS sees the only possible downside to be the £500 registration fee with OSCR, and that only if the new sources of funding prove illusory. This ignores the undisclosed legal fees and the time and effort spent in getting the status. SM did accept that the benefits of new financial resources are only potential ones.
SSS will persist with this.
2. Objects: Hopefully, we will at least get some mention of elite performance in the final version. But the contrast with the reality of SSS aims, as stated on the web-site will remain (see below). SM asserted that these aims are secondary to the objects and that, although 50% of SSS expenditure is on teams and competition, much more of the effort of SSS staff is put into grass roots work (and the new objects will require that to be so). For SSC, these aims are the primary purpose why we have SSS.
3. Bye-laws: The reason for having separate bye-laws is that they are ‘easier to change’, which is exactly why we would prefer not to have them. I assume the next M&A will make clear that only a general meeting can change these, in which case maybe we should be content.
4. Membership; It is accepted that only paid up member clubs should have voting rights in the new SSS. This is the one substantial improvement in the draft M&A. Other groups, specifically coaches, need to be enfranchised for example by requiring them to be members of a club, or by forming their own club.
On this, the wording, especially in the bye laws needs to be tidied up. The simplest method would be to refer throughout to Member Clubs (which will be in the definitions) and to remove other references to clubs (eg affiliated club) or members (eg student, associate, competitor member).
5. Voting: We were told that all other consultations had agreed to keep the 'logarithmic' scale of votes and not to change the allocations. SSC raised this at the March meeting and asserted that, due to the big changes in numbers of clubs and numbers of members in them, the allocations were now unfair. Do we want to push this? Have all the other large clubs been asleep?
Proxy voting was not discussed. It needs to be a workable scheme.
6. Capitation fee and services to members: It was stated that Aberdeen has a concern that the capitation fee was proving a disincentive to youngsters entering the sport, and hence more needs top be done to improve services to members. If £5 per year is a disincentive for some, how far are they ever likely to go in our sport?
To finish on a positive note, we were informed that SSS has received a very positive audit, which has helped secure a four year funding package from SportScotland at £219K per annum.
Bill Aitken, October 2011
Our five key aims are:
1. To foster a vibrant networks of quality clubs
2. To strength the economic base of the governing body
3. To foster a coach education structure and effective deployment of coaches
4. To foster the development of performance and excellence among Scottish Snowsport participants
5. To foster a competitions structure which will be attractive and accessible to all athletes