The highest level of democratic control in the Ramblers is known as "General Council".
This meets in Spring each year and deals with the normal AGM processes as well as motions from various sources including the Rambler "Areas"
It is relativey rare for Mid Lancashire Area to raise such motions but it is known.
This year there will be motions raised from various Areas regarding the changes made to walk leader guidance some months ago.
At this moment we do not know which specific motions will be raised so have decided to clarify the Mid Lancashire Area view on this subject and ask that our delgates reflect this in their considerations.
So a motion will be presented to our Mid Lancashire Area AGM to reflect the view we wish to offer.
This is still being reviewed by Area Council members so the following is a draft and subject to change.
Motion: Mid Lancs Area General Council View of Current Walk Leader Guidance.
Mid Lancashire Area notes that the current walk leader guidance has resulted in substantial numbers of previous leaders declining to lead under those guidelines, resulting in serious damage to our walk programmes and our attractiveness to new members.
Mid Lancashire Area would be supportive of returning to the prior guidance, and/or seeking significant revision through genuine collaboration and wide-spread consent from walk leaders.
Background
1. It is acknowledged that delegates are expected to act on their own judgement of the merits of General Council motions.
It is also appropriate that delegates be aware of the general view of their Area's representatives and be requested to give that due weight in relation to General Council motions.
2, It is difficult to accurately assess the damage that has been done.
- Various inputs suggest about 50% of prior walk leaders decline to lead because of current guidelines.
- Some have gone to other organisations, Some lead just "friends walks". Some have just given up.
Others tolerate the written assessment but without their approval.
- Groups are unable to maintain or expand their previously planned programmes.
3. There are quite a few reasons for leaders rejecting the current guidelines, a few are:-
- The key factor is that it has not achieved widespread consent and Central Office have declined to seek widespread consent despite substantial repeated rejections by many at the initial zoom consultations.
- A prime factor is that for Walks, unlike say footpath repairs, a Recce (or local familiarity) is the key "Risk Assessment", not tick boxes. This underlines the basic flawed attitude to these guidelines.
- Rightly or wrongly, the written assessment is seen by many as increasing their legal risk should they miss some risk that then occurs.
- The bureaucracy is inappropriate.
* It is not a leaders job to keep paper records for three years.
* The written assessment could be completed any time after the walk making it nonsensical
* The written assessment could be completed any time after the walk making it nonsensical
* The claim that it was an insurance requirement has since been found to be an untruth.
* Guideline should reflect relevant experience not bureaucracy.
- There is a mountain of other perspectives, issues and also questions of the legal right for Central Office to "dictate" rather than seek consent but those are more "grey" issues. Those simply reflects the lack of consent.
Please feel free to offer any constructive changes to the specific motion wording.