ACICI - new instructor website

[Marc LaMouche]

just curious, is there in fact a real, operative Ethics Committee within the IFFF ?

[ennio]

It remains the case that the CBoG and the BoD could shut down this debate overnight by removing the arbitary restrictions that they have placed on the membership and certifications of Dan and Denise and agree that they will follow the publicly accepted protocols for future violations of either the CICP Code of Practice or the new extended BoD SoP.

If there is a breach of these policies either by Dan and or Denise, or anyone else in fact, then the ethics committee system, which is generally acknowledged to have been applied fairly, up to now, is quite sufficient to be used to apply an appropriate sanction.

No-one expects them to be put back on the CBoG and no-one wants this damaging affair to continue...

Hear, hear!

[Lasse Karlsson]

just curious, is there in fact a real, operative Ethics Committee within the IFFF ?

Hi Marc

Within the CICP program, yes.

Cheers
Lasse

[Rich Knoles]

Better define real and operative :jack

[Marc LaMouche]

Within the CICP program, yes.

(i knew that Lasse, thanks )

so, it's there just for show, to be bypassed when the boss feels like it ?

cheers,
marc

[Hal Jordan]

If the boss you are referring to is Phil Greenlee then, yes, he can bypass anything with a little help from the BoD. The BoD runs the whole FFF including the CBoG.

We may never know the whole story of why he chose to take this action in this case but as far as I know it is the only time the BoD has bypassed the CBoG on a CICP ethics issue. Sometimes the CBoG ethics committee is swamped with as many as 2 or even 3 ethics complaints in a whole year.

If you are unhappy with the election process you could always move to Canada

[Bernd]

Dave Diaz was right in that respect.

Fuck arden and his etrash fanboys.

Guy,
if that is what the chairman of the CBOG said then am really wondering what for the code of conduct and the ethics commitee might be if it will not start to investigate on this now.
You or David Diaz may not like all other instructors and maybe not every instructor may like both of you either. That's just normal, but this was a very bad way of cummunication between instructors. I thought the ec based on the coc was meant to "have an eye" on exactly this.
Greets
Bernd

[Marc LaMouche]

yes, he can bypass anything with a little help from the BoD. The BoD runs the whole FFF including the CBoG.

If you are unhappy with the election process you could always move to Canada

that's all painfully obvious from this whole thread, and yes i do pay attention but excuse me for being intentionally dense...
what's the point of having an ethics committee if they're forced to back off at the slightest whim ?
it must really suck to be a member of the committee knowing they have no say on an important issue regarding CCP members...

point B: i'll pass but thanks ! :laugh:

cheers,
marc

[Casting Matters]

I have it too, it is a spiced up rewrite of a letter which was to be sent to the CBoG. Not me who added the spice by the way, not sure I approve either, Denise and Dan sent it out.

So far there is confirmed support from 13 different countries for a less aggressively worded letter. There are reasonable arguments from one major territory that it should be significantly less demanding, these arguments are to be respected and no-one is forced to sign up to something they do not agree with.

One of the criticisms of this particular episode is that it appears to have been co-ordinated here on SL and that there are very few people who feel strongly enough about it to complain. The purpose of the letter is to indicate that not only is there widespread international support for the appropriate application of CICP procedures but that this support extends beyond the regular posters here on Sexyloops.

There are those amongst the wider community that have had a hissy at the idea that the CboG should be challenged in this way, which is fair enough. But, almost all agree that the protocols, which up to now have been assumed to apply to us all and which are there, not only to protect the organisation, but to protect members from frivolous allegations and abuses of power or position, have not been followed.

It remains the case that the CBoG and the BoD could shut down this debate overnight by removing the arbitary restrictions that they have placed on the membership and certifications of Dan and Denise and agree that they will follow the publicly accepted protocols for future violations of either the CICP Code of Practice or the new extended BoD SoP.

If there is a breach of these policies either by Dan and or Denise, or anyone else in fact, then the ethics committee system, which is generally acknowledged to have been applied fairly, up to now, is quite sufficient to be used to apply an appropriate sanction.

No-one expects them to be put back on the CBoG and no-one wants this damaging affair to continue...

Attached is the alternative letter which has been circulating.

The irony of all those noble statements is almost too much for me.

One question I am wondering about genuinely. How can one follow an ethics committee system or protocol if there is effectively non co operation from one party?

[Paul Arden]

I think something we may not fully appreciate Robert, is in the US (and Denmark) the FFF is a large fly fishing club, one that has a corporate direction. For most of us Internationally all we know about the FFF is that we have been using the instructor certifications for professional instruction. There are many separate and at times conflicting interests between the different groups using this banner.

For my part I found it very difficult to make any significant headway within, no doubt because my interest is solely professional fly fishing instruction. There is no question that most Americans don't see themselves as being professional instructors, whereas many Internationals, especially in the UK and Ireland most certainly do. My philosophy is, I charge money, hence I'm professional.

It makes much more sense for me to work within a small group of likeminded people, instead of battle on in an association of predominantly different minded people.

I want to see one world-wide professional instructors' association that is self-governing and run by all its members. Yes it's one of "my preferences". That's what I was mistakenly working for within the FFF.

Anyway now that I'm out I'm not shooting cannons at the FFF. It was only as a member that I was trying to change things and make them better, because I think that's what it means to be a member. I don't see the FFFCICP as a threat to any international professional instructors' association. If I hit a wall in trying to make the changes required then they're not going to make the changes themselves.

I think Dan and Denise were treated very poorly indeed. I think
the entire situation has been extremely mishandled before and since. But I don't think Mark or any number of International instructors will make any significant changes.

Cheers, Paul

[Hal Jordan]

Approximately 10% of all FFF members are in the CICP. I think when Mel and friends created the CICP they were happy to be under the umbrella of a larger organization but they also insisted on independent governance which is why the CICP has its own BoG. Somehow the independence got lost and this episode has made that all too obvious.

[Paul Arden]

CBOG elect CBOG, Walter. Of course it got lost. The CICP is big enough now to stand alone; it doesn't need the FFF motherly wing. For me it's harder to get others to fly than to organise those who want to fly. In a couple of years we'll have this all sorted out. For me, my first connection is with fellow professional instructors. Secondly all fly fishers. And then there is the rest of the world. I don't care what name we organise under, only that we all have equal say on its running!

Cheers, Paul

[Hal Jordan]

CBOG elect CBOG, Walter.

Elect is a actually a poor choice of words. In an election they count votes and if they reach a certain percentage of positives the person is elected. Being granted membership in the CBoG is actually more like joining a secret society where CBoGs meet in cabal to select from the worthy to join their ranks. You must get at least 1/3 of the membership to you approve you but no matter how many positive votes you get it takes only 2 negatives to bar you from entering the hallowed halls. More like a reverse election in my mind. They don't vote to approve you - they vote to disapprove you.

[Paul Arden]

Yeah I know. Tried to get in a few years back so I could help examine Masters Internationally and promote Internatiomally (and make them democratic from the inside, but I didnt tell them that ). One of the comments I got highlighted back was that CBOG wasn't there to serve my interest in International expansion! I still don't understand why Americans like to bring everything down to an individual's preferences, and maybe others see it this way too, but I don't hear it put this way anywhere else. I wasn't actually doing it for me anyway, but instead other instructors and the FFFCP.

Anyway they don't want someone like me in there. I'd give them too much of a hard time! Ally Gowans tried to get in one year too. Man he'd be more trouble than I would!

Cheers, Paul

[Paul Arden]

What amazed me, is that they "voted" Haysie in. Haysie is a big name, and I see eye to eye with him on just about everything. I was asked to give a letter of support, but figured that would be the kiss of death! Haysie and I share beds sometimes.