Outcome of Public Meeting
Garden Route Paragliding Blog
Attendance:
1. The meeting was attended by at least one representative of each
club active in the Garden Route, as well as some pilots who clearly
recorded their non-affiliation to any current club structure. Two
landowners attended personally, whilst a total of 7 others recorded
their inability and apologies for not being able to personally attend,
their interest in the meeting and their requests to be informed of the
outcome and results of the meeting.
2. Other stakeholders such as SANPARKS/Forestry and the local tourism
authorities were informed prior to the meeting that a potentially
complex working session could be expected, that would probably not be
directly relevant to their current interests, and they accordingly
requested to be kept abreast of developments and to be engaged with
again when there is a body able to do so on behalf of the broader
Garden Route paragliding community. The local tourism authority
recorded their position and conditions for direct cooperation in
writing, prior to the meeting.
Matters of Record:
1. Cobus Potgieter recorded the means of communication employed to get
the local paragliding community at large to be aware of the
proceedings, the fact that an independent chairperson was not arranged
for in time and that the originally proposed minutes and over-all
format of the meeting would need to be amended to accommodate the
practical circumstances of the meeting and the objectives of it. The
meeting proceeded on this basis, with no objections recorded.
2. Cobus Potgieter also recorded the facts and offered those present
the opportunity to peruse the pertinent documents, relevant to the
recorded positions of both SAHPA and RAASA in respect of support for
the meeting and the specific need to resolve the matters at hand and,
most specifically and urgently, the issues pertaining to Mr Claus
Martin.
3. Mr Martin was given the opportunity to address the gathering, there
was considerable debate conducted and a clear understanding arrived
at. In essence, the Record of Understanding negotiated and as further
supported by a Notam, as well as practical engagement by the
paragliding community at large, would see Mr Martin cooperate with us
and not proceeding with legal proceedings. He was emphatically clear
though, with reference to some facts that he recorded and which were
verified by a number of the other parties in attendance, that he would
not be prepared to enter into an agreement or arrangement with a
single club and particularly not Skywings Paragliding Club, and that
in the absence of an agreement with a credible body, he would be
proceeding with measures to have the Beach Hotel launch site closed by
RAASA.
Matters Emanating from Debate:
1. A period in excess of two hours were spent by those in attendance
to debate the matters at hand and to attempt to arrive at a
constructive point of departure to address some of the challenges
faced collectively, options as to processes that should be followed,
time-lines within which we could attempt same, and the like. Informal
notes and a recording of the proceedings could be made available to
interested parties, if requested in writing and agreed to by the
majority of those in attendance.
2. Some inescapable conclusions emanated from this debate and these
are essentially that the current scenario cannot be allowed to be
continued if we hope to be able to rescue sites from RAASA sanctions
as a result of a failure by us to get a legitimate structure in place
to deal with these matters, to engage with other stakeholders such as
tourism bodies and SANPARKS/Forestry, and to introduce capacities such
as site management systems to the sport in our region.
3. The following matters were briefly, some very briefly indeed,
touched upon as headlines of issues that would need to be resolved
upon, reflected below in no particular order:
SITE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Need or not
Payment facilities & procedures
Responsible bodies
Process re objectives, budgets and decisions
NEW STRUCTURE
Yes or No
Name going forward – Garden Route as brand or not?
Format of structure going forward – new versus a Skywings, per
example, lengthy inputs and some commitments re Skywings
Membership and Stakeholder communication and engagement
CONSTITUTION
Management structure(s)
Representation of commercials, landowners, stakeholders
Discipline - structures and procedures
Safety - structure and procedures
Due diligence matters, audit of pilots and sites, financials,
communication procedures, etc,.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
Local structures
Procedures going to SAHPA and RAASA
Current vs new structures nationally
Nett Outcome:
The meeting had met with time constraints by this time and also a
natural and practical limit as to what could be furthermore dealt with
at this stage. The following proposal was submitted by Cobus
Potgieter, debated for some time and then with all possible
uncertainties having been cleared up, adopted by all:
1. That SAHPA be requested to appoint an uninvolved person to act as
Convenor, read ‘post box’ and/or enforcer, for the purposes of
conducting a process that will render an accurate picture of sites,
pilots, club membership for the purposes of starting with a clean and
legitimate slate as a sport, given historical misrepresentations,
misunderstanding and disputes.
2. This Convenor also to act as point person and upon the instruction
of this meeting and with specific reference to the matters of record
and those emanating from the debate – as above, in the matter of Mr
Claus Martin and to conclude and oversee the implementation of the
Record of Understanding (Also the NOTAM), pending the establishment of
an agreed body in whatever form to represent the broader Garden Route
paragliding community.
3. That the Convenor, as proposed, guide the debate and the formal
processes of engagement with members of the broader Garden Route
paragliding community to arrive at a preferred structure to address
the matters raised in the above.
4. That the Convenor be mandated to immediately deal with matters and
conduct that would seem to endanger the reputation of the sport and
its’ membership, in respect of disciplinary procedures. Practically,
if events should occur where the sport seems to be brought in
disrepute, for this Convenor to immediately bring the appropriate
charges and deal with the matter in an expedited manner, MOP and other
regulatory frameworks permitted.
5. The appointment of the Convenor to be done immediately and
processes described to be concluded with 30 days from such
appointment.