How is the current CDS BoD doing?

[RN]

Yeah, it won't be accurate, but how accurate is any poll? Just wondering what the general consensus is on how the current CDS BoD is doing. This is a simple poll to show whether you're okay with how they are doing or not. Let's not get picky and start suggesting more options. That's not the point. Think about your general feeling about the board, not individual members and choose a response. I've made the poll private so the way you vote will not be made public.

[Slüdge]

What if my answer isn't one of the choices?

[Kelly Jessop]

Selection#4 I can't decide because I never go to any of the board meeting and participate,and I don't depend on any of the internet signal to noise ratio as being informed information.

[skip]

the only thing i know about is the decision to forbid nonmembers from abe davis and although i disagree with that decision, I don't know enough otherwise to vote, except I suppose for "too early to tell."

-skip

[skip]

Selection#4 I can't decide because I never go to any of the board meeting and participate,and I don't depend on any of the internet signal to noise ratio as being informed information.

with proper analysis the signal to noise ratio can be calculated and the information then determined as to how informative it may be within an error rate of + or - 5%, maybe even 1%. in some cases it may be possible to apply specific previous findings to most-likely scenarios for the new case and arrive at a reasonable approximation without needing true signal or true noise information. What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of good information on this and other forums and to reject internet (forum) information is not profitable. As I recall, the CDS BoD posts minutes of sorts on the internet and opinions regarding the information in those minutes is as valid as any opinion not posted. In the information age we are not required to physically be present, but can monitor and opine from afar. And it's more democratic to boot.

-skip

[Kelly Jessop]

. What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of good information on this and other forums and to reject internet (forum) information is not profitable.

But there is so much that is certified BS. I served on the board for 4 years,and the comments I saw were more often wrong than anywhere near close. Yes there is some useful information,but there is so much disinformation that lead people askew. Caveat Emptor,and use critical thinking.

[Squirrel Girl]

I live far from FL. Has the BoD done anything? I haven't heard.

[FW]

I live far from FL. Has the BoD done anything? I haven't heard.
The results of several recent motions are posted on the BOD forum: http://www.nsscds.org/phpBB2/index.php

[netmage]

the only thing i know about is the decision to forbid nonmembers from abe davis and although i disagree with that decision, I don't know enough otherwise to vote, except I suppose for "too early to tell."

-skip

Skip,.... I have nothing to back this up, as the BoD minutes don't include an iota of discussion, and no one from the BoD has taken the opportunity to speak to the membership on the internet.... BUT... I personally believe the recent Abe Davis, etc rule change was as a direct result of mirroring an action by the NACD to change their award structure to free for members, and a fee to non-members, which was coincidently identical to the yearly fee...

So... IMHO, I believe the BoD decision was simply a matter of parity matching to maintain a 'status quo' of sorts w/ the NACD policies.

-Tim

[Tegg]

Well their recent change to the site access policy should help the budget greatly...

Students of NSS-CDS Instructors now do not need to join the CDS in order to train in the CDS owned properties.... Looks like the CDS just became a property holder for all the instructors to have "private training" grounds without requiring their students to become members in order to dive the sites....

This should help with the budget issues that other people brought up in other threads... right?

Less membership dues for the CDS and the Instructors have a "private" training ground to use for $35/year.... Nice huh?

Maybe instructors should be charged a higher membership fee since they can "make a profit" from the use of the CDS property...?


There are a lot of changes going on and in progress that is shifting the focus of the CDS to be more of an instructor owned organization then a "member" owned organization.

There are only 72 listed instructors for the CDS, which is a SMALL portion of the membership... yet the BOD is a majority of instructors.... Wonder why these changes are taking place?

[DeepSea]

Maybe instructors should be charged a higher membership fee since they can "make a profit" from the use of the CDS property...?


I like that idea!



There are only 72 listed instructors for the CDS, which is a SMALL portion of the membership... yet the BOD is a majority of instructors.... Wonder why these changes are taking place?

It is the same way on the other agency: 6 instructors, 1 non-instructor.

Joe, unfortunately, there is always such a small turnout of voters that it is almost impossible to change the structure of the boards away from being Instructor led.

[smaclean]

Look, even the State Parks systems makes an instructor buy a commercial use permit to teach on site. A commercial permit might not be a bad idea.

[netmage]

Look, even the State Parks systems makes an instructor buy a commercial use permit to teach on site. A commercial permit might not be a bad idea.

But the state also doesn't publish training manuals... I'm not privy to the economics around the CDS and the instructors... But at the very least, for each and every class run by a CDS instructor revenue is being piped into the CDS for both cert cards as well as training materials...

Just looks like another attempt to tax everything...

[RN]

Even though this is a hijack of this thread, I'll pipe in here. The only CDS cave I know that's being used for training is Cow and only downstream is allowed for that purpose, I believe. That provides a whole 200' of cave for training purposes. If charging for use of that passage for training is what the membership wants, then introduce the motion. However, please don't apply it to all CDS instructors. Some of us don't train there. And even if I lived there I probably wouldn't train there.

BTW, I see the poll results are showing it's a small minority that has been very vocal on the boards. Apparenty, about 75% either think the BoD is doing okay or it hasn't been long enough to tell. True, this poll isn't very scientific, but neither are most of the complaints I've been reading lately...

[netmage]

Even though this is a hijack of this thread, I'll pipe in here. The only CDS cave I know that's being used for training is Cow and only downstream is allowed for that purpose, I believe. That provides a whole 200' of cave for training purposes. If charging for use of that passage for training is what the membership wants, then introduce the motion. However, please don't apply it to all CDS instructors. Some of us don't train there. And even if I lived there I probably wouldn't train there.

"2. Only NSS-CDS Instructors may use Cow Springs as a training site within the guidelines contained in this document. Only sidemount training dives are permitted in the upstream section. Sidemount students should be proficient in buoyancy control and be able to exercise proper technique to avoid damaging the cave. Students should also be sufficiently aware of their own skill level to properly determine if they are prepared to enter a fragile site. NSS-CDS Instructors are also charged with determining the skill level of their students and the appropriateness of using Cow Springs as a training site. "

[rchrds]

The CDS has been an instructor run organization for a long time, most just don't realize it. Way back when I tried a hand at the board (97?), I tried to get changes passed that affected certain things that instructors taught, and represented as CDS policy. Needless to say, though the entire board approved the motion, it was never changed in the instructor policies, because, the truth of it is, the board has no control of what the instructors do. I'm sure it doesn't read that way in the bylaws. None the less, that was enough for me. If you still think that the CDS is a caving organization for the purpose of conserving caves, promoting the study of caves and being a collection point for people interested in exploration and research, you are probably going to be sorely disappointed, if you are not already. The CDS is no better than PADI, the publications for years have been little more than a platform for advertisement and self-aggrandizement with near to zero research or new exploration (Perhaps this is changing with Beth on board) and I am not impressed. The board floats along between epic disasters, trying to keep things under control, but in the end makes little change. Good Luck.

[Tegg]

The CDS is no better than PADI, the publications for years have been little more than a platform for advertisement and self-aggrandizement with near to zero research or new exploration (Perhaps this is changing with Beth on board) and I am not impressed. The board floats along between epic disasters, trying to keep things under control, but in the end makes little change. Good Luck.

Jason,

I am starting to see that this has been an issue for quite sometime. This does not mean that it can't be changed and "brought back to it's roots", it just means that change will be tougher.

I would not go quite to the level of comparing the CDS to PADI, but I do think the current board is trying to make the CDS "look like" NAUI. Soon they may even ask for a name change... CDIS.

Either way, the CDS is still a member "ruled" organization. Thus the way to effect changes is to get involved and keep up on the activities of the current BOD. Since I pay my dues, I have a voice and a vote.

Maybe I am like that aspiring politician who hasn't quite been jaded enough, but I still think that the CDS can be "brought back on track".

[FW]

One solution would be to *not* elect full time instructors to the BOD.

[MORGAN]

We get the BOD we elect, no?

Mike

[rchrds]

One solution would be to *not* elect full time instructors to the BOD.

Unfortunately, that is not a solution- as the instructors have managed to separate themselves from the BOD with their almost completely independent instructor chain of command. Tell me the last time the BOD (any BOD) was able to make a significant change in the structure of how the CDS teaches students without the agreement of the instructor director and his cronies?

[Bill Rotella]

One solution would be to *not* elect full time instructors to the BOD.


I agree with Forrest on this issue, in my opinion the only representative on the BOD should be the Training Director, all other BOD members should be elected from the general membership.

[johnnyrichards]

Bill, Forrest and others who are concerned about instructor participation in "your" agency- I have no problem complying with your wishes that I no longer be involved in the support of your organization with student workbook purchases, registration fees and memberships. Consider it done- I will take my business elsewhere and, as far as this instructor is concerned, you can have "your" organization back.

JR

[Tegg]

I agree with Forrest on this issue, in my opinion the only representative on the BOD should be the Training Director, all other BOD members should be elected from the general membership.

I do not agree on this issue. Instructors are members also.

I just think that the current BOD and some previous ones have forgotten that instructors are not the only members and may have lost sight of the organization's stated purpose.

[Oister]

We could solve all this by getting rid of training and be a true conservation organization. There should be a per student impact fee for all instructors who use CDS caves.

[Tegg]

We could solve all this by getting rid of training and be a true conservation organization. There should be a per student impact fee for all instructors who use CDS caves.

Training is in the CDS Constitution, Article 2.

Thus I disagree. I do agree that training should not the the "main activity" that the CDS does though....

[Bill Rotella]

Bill, Forrest and others who are concerned about instructor participation in "your" agency- I have no problem complying with your wishes that I no longer be involved in the support of your organization with student workbook purchases, registration fees and memberships. Consider it done- I will take my business elsewhere and, as far as this instructor is concerned, you can have "your" organization back.

JR


JR, you and I both have had a short fuse. I remember where you couldn't even make it through a whole bod meeting. My intention is to get to the original purpose of the CDS, not $$$$$. Sorry to see you go JR for you cannot make changes by walking away. The bottom line is, are we a not-for-profit, or a profit corporation?

[Oister]

Training is in the CDS Constitution, Article 2.

Thus I disagree. I do agree that training should not the the "main activity" that the CDS does though....
The purpose of this Society shall be to promote interest in and to advance in any and all ways the study and science of speleology, the protection of caves and their natural contents, and to promote fellowship among those interested therein.


ARTICLE II: The purpose of the organization shall be the same as that of the National Speleological Society (hereafter referred to as NSS), with the additional purpose of organizing NSS members who are interested in cave diving so that they may better promote the objectives of the NSS. These objectives include 1) promotion of the conservation, exploration, and study of underwater caves; and 2) education for increased awareness, safety, and skill in cave diving.

Conservation is first. It Just seems to me we spend way more time doing training stuff then conservation. Training brings in more money then conservation. Guess it is a hard choice.

[FW]

[B][FONT=Book Antiqua]Conservation is first. It Just seems to me we spend way more time doing training stuff then conservation. Training brings in more money then conservation. Guess it is a hard choice.

There is no reason to have to make a choice, we need both. We do have to be careful to avoid becoming nothing more than a training agency, though.

And Tegg, the constitution was written four years before we even began the training program. It mentions education, which could be handing out conservation brochures.