 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Have BASI ever publicly stated why they won't issue an MOU for SB?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I believe it is a significant victory it has shown extreme incompetence even amateurism by a national governing body. Not a single person involved could now be a party to any new hearing within BASI as SB could clearly demonstrate that they are not independent that they have already made their mind up. So either BASI need to employ an outside body to conduct any hearing against SB or put it to the membership with full and complete disclosure of everything not just what they want members to see.
BASI would be better advised to sit down and work out an agreement with SB and release a joint statement which would allow him to remain a member of BASI as long as he does not teach in France while the legal process is exhausted. If their legal team advocate to fight BASI need to get a new legal team as these are amateurs incapable of organising the proverbial in a brewery.
Those like S. Burke may well have to be suspended for their actions which where childish and utterly unprofessional
TTT, You have been very eager to keep pointing out SB was convicted in a French court well for now at least BASI are in the same position in a Scottish court, even if they win an appeal they will still have been shown as amateurs and incompetents incapable of understanding such basic human rights as due process. Do the membership really deserve to be lead by these people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I am sure SB's legal team will be asking the Courts to comment on the alleged Board Member who is not a 'Full' member and so shouldn't be on the Board (in my opinion). Will all the meetings & discussions he has taken place in become 'Ultra Vires' ?? If so BASI will shown to be totally incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I have to say that this business does rather put one off joining BASI/doing quals. It also highlights the 'small world' nature of skiing with highly placed members of a certifying authority also running businesses which profit from training courses...
As with much in life, the generation born in the 50's and 60's seem to have done well out of it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@TTT, reiterating the ways in which SB might have behaved foolishly or illegally does nothing to advance the debate on whether BASI did the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@speed098, I agree with a lot of what you have written. I understand that it is only an injunction that suspends the BASI decision until evidence has been presented by BASI. SB decided to go the court route and has not complied with previous agreements so it is SB decision to go court route.
It's amazing but not surprising that people believe the SB propaganda. It's a classic example of people believe what they want to believe and ignore the points that they don't want to hear. Anyway who can not see and weigh up both sides of the argument is clearly biased and not credible. I present the other side to balance the debate.
The new CEO was not party to decision and won't be working in megeve after he takes office. Salomon sponsor lots of ski instructors.
SB has not got his MoU because he has not done the capa or ET so does not have equivalence and he does not have the exemption because he did not submit his required dossier at the time. This was entirely down to SB as he did not bother or refused to comply.
He is not losing work as he has very publicly stated he will work in CH and it is the French who have blocked him from working in France.
What is due process though for a members organisation? He is not an employee of basi with statutory rights. It's a members organisation. They followed the AofA. He was voted out by a board decision which appears to follow the AofA so what is the relevant legal requirements here. Did they or did they not comply with the AofA or is there a wider law. I would have thought a criminal convictions is adequate reason. As ever with SB it is messy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
t's a classic example of people believe what they want to believe and ignore the points that they don't want to hear. Anyway who can not see and weigh up both sides of the argument is clearly biased and not credible. I present the other side to balance the debate. |
Actually, thank you for taking the time to present your opinion. It seems to me that BASI are at a crossroads, appearing as a somewhat opaque and political organisation to many on the outside. This of course does not necessarily imply that they ARE opaque and political, and reasoned opinions like yours are important.
I don't suppose that anyone really believes that one side here is whiter than white. Seems to me that it is time for a bit of old-fashioned compromise and tolerance... This issue could be resolved by grown up behaviour in an astonishingly short period of time I imagine. I suspect there are some historical questions which a relatively small number of individuals are clinging to...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
But time and again you fail to present a complete view of the "other side" which you now claim you may or may not believe in. I believe I broke key points down into 3 questions which need to be resolved before this can be completely put to bed starting with " the error".
I doubt many believe SB is not a stubborn man who does what he believes but to an outsider there is more than a whiff of political stitch up about the whole Satolas agreement, the dodgy Garmisch Eurotest, the "error"etc etc. I doubt BASI will ever contain these until they fully open the books to their own members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
What is due process though for a members organisation?
|
It's a limited company which changes things a bit. The law has a lot to say about ways in which decisions within a Company should be made. And if any part of their Articles of Association are at odds with Company law they are effectively not worth the paper they are written on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Agree with the above. It is not my personal opinion unless I state I think or I believe etc. just like journalists, lawyers, advisors, work and life. I don't need to write the SB view as he has plenty of propaganda - you will see the DT piece while I would not say is incorrect is certainly not the whole story or balanced. Eg So yes I suspect SB has now submitted his dossier but omits he did not do it at time required. I think the quote about SB being very stubborn in the guardian piece is very apt.
Basi were not party of the Garmisch test I understand - just took advantage of it for the members participating.
The whole thing is political, messy and personal but it normally is in life. SB is just one member with very specific circumstances. Basi is pushing for extending rights but they don't have any armed forces so they can not fight, they are not the french government so they can not set the law and they are not the EU so they can not set the rules. They can only lobby which they do and that means negotiations and that means concessions. SB is just a sub-plot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
ttt: Perhaps we may have seen and weighed up your argument and found it somewhat wanting? Repetition just stokes the fire.
Either BASI are supporting their members in the fight against criminal ski instructor gangs and their celebrity-look-alike propagandist.... or something else is going on here.
A Scottish court seems like a reasonable place to find out which it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
Basi were not party of the Garmisch test I understand - just took advantage of it for the members participating.
|
You have half of this story correct. Now what is it you like to say about people only reading what they want to see?
That's how you want to portray it as that's all you want to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| TTT wrote: |
@speed098, I agree with a lot of what you have written. I understand that it is only an injunction that suspends the BASI decision until evidence has been presented by BASI. SB decided to go the court route and has not complied with previous agreements so it is SB decision to go court route.
It's amazing but not surprising that people believe the SB propaganda. It's a classic example of people believe what they want to believe and ignore the points that they don't want to hear. Anyway who can not see and weigh up both sides of the argument is clearly biased and not credible. I present the other side to balance the debate.
The new CEO was not party to decision and won't be working in megeve after he takes office. Salomon sponsor lots of ski instructors.
SB has not got his MoU because he has not done the capa or ET so does not have equivalence and he does not have the exemption because he did not submit his required dossier at the time. This was entirely down to SB as he did not bother or refused to comply.
He is not losing work as he has very publicly stated he will work in CH and it is the French who have blocked him from working in France.
What is due process though for a members organisation? He is not an employee of basi with statutory rights. It's a members organisation. They followed the AofA. He was voted out by a board decision which appears to follow the AofA so what is the relevant legal requirements here. Did they or did they not comply with the AofA or is there a wider law. I would have thought a criminal convictions is adequate reason. As ever with SB it is messy. |
Do you know 100% he was not party to the discussion? Do you know if he was there when it was discussed?
Salomon do sponsor lots of instructors. It's not about that. It's the Salomon reps position on the BASI board and relationship to BASS Megeve that is being questioned.
Lots of others are in the same position as SB and either applied at the time or later. They have been issued with a Carte Pro he has not. Even now applications from the original group are being accepted. SB said in the last video he has confirmation from the French that his dossier was received..
SB without a licence cannot carry out his profession. It's not as if he's being told he can't borrow books from the local library.
Regarding criminal convictions - if anyone in BASI has a criminal conviction then it will show on their CRB/PVG and BASI should take the same stance. Why should SB be treated differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| TTT wrote: |
Basi were not party of the Garmisch test I understand - just took advantage of it for the members participating. |
Why did BASI need to 'take advantage'? Garmisch was a advertised Eurotest run by the German Federation. What was wrong with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@TTT, I can see from your answers you do not know why Simon Butler was issued his MOU for two seasons, apparently in error. Again another point that reflects poorly upon BASI.
@stewart woodward, 'take advantage' wow it sounds as if some corrupt underhanded business went on, I have guessed it, Satolas agreement signed by the incoming CEO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@stewart woodward, agreed - I don't see that basi did anything wrong as far as garmisch is concerned - looks like people are looking for a stick whatever they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @stewart woodward, agreed - I don't see that basi did anything wrong as far as garmisch is concerned - looks like people are looking for a stick whatever they do. |
So why did the French complain and kick up a fuss and thereby forcing BASI to sign a deal for snowboarders?
At the very least face the facts of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@TTT
You astound me with your consistency to ignore the facts. I'll assume you simply don't know the facts and that's why you have been selective in your statement. You really don't know what BASI did wrong?
1 - BASI & a German national take France to court
2 - France says it will allow 22 ET passes to stand in exchange for withdrawing from court action regarding rights of snowboarders to work in France (France doesn't have a snowboard only qualification like Germany and BASI)
3- BASI sign a deal
4 - German national wins the case
5 - BASI didn't need to cut any deals and the ET results for BASI members would have stood!
What advantage was gained?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Astound? What is wrong with that. It was the least competitive run up until Didier Cuche's last world cup run, the French weren't happy but basi said it was a valid test and supported it members. The et rules were subsequently tightened - what's wrong with that.
Basi can only lobby within the rules and take what is on the table equivalence - FRANCE has no lower grades so no equivalence. It is not basi's job to crucade for SB - they have to be seen to work with the law not break it.
The system works well over all
SB seems to have become a bit of a cult leader with his acolytes frothing at the mouth if someone questions. It is messy. There are no absolute right or wrongs. People have different views. I don't have a problem. I will never make a living out of instructing and never thought I would. The french comply with eu rules - admittedly they help set them. Basi have been very good as far as I'm concerned. A ski buddy messaged me to say what is there problem on SH and SB. I responded I have no idea. I just like to ski. SB is trying to change the law. Up to him but personally I will not putting work the way of someone who has no respect for local culture or my civil or working rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Many of the recent posts are interesting but irrelevant to the current situation, also, sniping at each other may be fun but it is not conducive to finding out the facts.
It is not really relevant that BASI had an agreement with France, because over the years there have been several and they do not even affect the Simon Butler case - or his recent problems with BASI.
Mr Butler was not expelled for teaching illegally, he was expelled for knowingly and continually employing others that he knew would stand a good chance of ending up with a criminal conviction. Some did.
BASI have expelled Mr Butler through their own Articles of Association which they claim allow them to do this. They have published their reasons in a statement to members.
This is only my view but I suppose the moral route would have been for Simon Butler to stop employing those people who were at risk straight away then to follow the French legal procedure all the way to Europe to prove he was right. This way no one was at risk except Mr Butler himself.
Since he did not choose to do this he was expelled from BASI.
He has now gone to the courts to overturn his expulsion. It seems he had no confidence in the existing internal appeals procedure.
The court has issued a stop to his expulsion after hearing Mr Butler's arguments on their own and BASI has 21 days to appeal in order to argue their case. This is an entirely normal legal procedure.
Mr Butler's recent evidence to the court (and the version that has been released to the public) may or may not be totally factually or contextually correct. If the matter goes before the court, it is they who will decide, not Simon Butler and not BASI.
BASI's board could meet and could follow a similar decision making process to this:
Are we happy with our original decision? No - stop, Yes continue.
Is our external legal advice happy we have acted correctly, Yes continue, No - Stop
Do we have the money to fight the case and if so do we wish to spend it? Yes - continue, No - stop. If BASI win fine - if not they lose money including (possibly) Simon Butler's costs.
Even if BASI win and have costs awarded they still have to recover them, so they have to allow for their own costs as a minimum.
So BASI have to weigh up all of the possibilities and act accordingly.
Question is - what if BASI are right? Should we on this forum stop them? Just because of a vociferous minority?
Simon Butler has his rights, so do BASI, all we can do is watch this space. In my view it is still too early to judge on the individual issues that have been raised and may or may not be valid.
I am rather neutral in this but perhaps it is better for an external body to oversee the decision than to be made on an internal
appeal within BASI.
No matter what, lawyers will win.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 23-11-14 17:41; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed and I also think the license debate is irrelevant as well as won't change whether he can work in france or not - only the French/EU courts can do that. I do think it's a brilliant marketing campaign by SB to his target audience - presumably his margins are down as he will have to comply with labour laws in CH and FR, pay CH patents and France level 4s or risk further convictions - this is what it is really about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Saint
>Even if BASI win and have costs awarded they still have to recover them, so they have to allow for their own costs as a minimum.
And if they lose? The reference in the Telegraph today mentions business losses of £500,000. The implications should SB win this are horrendous.
If BASI are right then they are right. Regardless of which side of the argument you see the shortcomings of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| Agreed and I also think the license debate is irrelevant as well as won't change whether he can work in france or not - only the French/EU courts can do that. I do think it's a brilliant marketing campaign by SB to his target audience - presumably his margins are down as he will have to comply with labour laws in CH and FR, pay CH patents and France level 4s or risk further convictions - this is what it is really about. |
@TTT the licence debate is very relevant. From what I know and there has been no explanation on any site or FB, it would appear to me that his Carte Pro should have been issued. That would have stopped the arrests and fines. That is something he will no doubt be challenging now he is taking court action. If there is no valid reason to grant him his Carte Pro then what is he supposed to do? Errors, missing paperwork, confirmation of dossier received by French etc. That would have stopped the arrests and fines.
If you know why then please pass it on as I have never seen any reason published.
In the allegations of employing instructors illegally then no, his personal licence issues are not relevant. To the case of his illegal working etc, that is down to BASI and the French authorities to clarify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skison,
I suppose i do see some shortcomings no matter what the result.
The money side is of course important (to both sides).
I suppose it would better if the whole issue had not happened.
In fact i was only pointing out that in a situation like this there are more complications than pure right or wrong.
Shame really - I love skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
As I said before he doesn't have french equivalence (capa/et) so he has no right. Exemption was discretionary. France have taken away his right to work not basi so can't see how any losses can be attributed to basi. He would have to demonstrate losses and those losses caused by basi. The MoU is just a document to facilitate the process it is not the underlying requirement - you can still apply for carte pro without. France stopped him working in fr not basi and he doesn't need a license to work in CH. It is France that have not issued carte pro which he has no right to under EU rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
I think the criminal convictions would be sufficient not to issue carte pro. Not given someone a license because they are a serial criminal on numerous various charges seems reasonable to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| As I said before he doesn't have french equivalence (capa/et) so he has no right. Exemption was discretionary. France have taken away his right to work not basi so can't see how any losses can be attributed to basi. He would have to demonstrate losses and those losses caused by basi. The MoU is just a document to facilitate the process it is not the underlying requirement - you can still apply for carte pro without. France stopped him working in fr not basi and he doesn't need a license to work in CH. It is France that have not issued carte pro which he has no right to under EU rules |
BASI had taken his right to work as an instructor. That's what was in the interim court order dealt with on Friday.
France only took his right to work in France away. BASI took his working rights completely.
Exemption was discretionary? Can you back that up with anything other than hearsay? What was the discretionary criteria. Again, facts only not opinions or hearsay or whispers from your BASI insider.
This part of SB v BASI could be cleared up in an instance if only someone would do the sensible thing and tell him why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| It is France that have not issued carte pro which he has no right to under EU rules |
What are you talking about here?
Who ever said it was an EU rule? I know it's France who did not issue the Carte Pro - it's why not that has never been explained. BASI could have assisted his application and didn't. Neither have explained why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
He can still work in CH as advertised so not taken away his right to work.
There was a process. SB did not comply. He does not have equivalence to french so no entitlement under EU rules but he has lost license for employing underqualifieds who have no equivalence under EU rules.
Where it gets murky for me is the laws for members. I appreciate company law but long time I since studied and has changed and don't no legal rules for members.
People keep saying due process but basi followed aofA so what is the due process that legally has to be followed.That seems to me just to be hearsay until someone can quote me the relevant law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Regarding the issue of a "Carte Professionnelle" in France. Below is an extract from French Sports Law (Code de Sport) that requires an "obligation of honorabilty". It mentions that certain convictions and / or administrative procedures may mean that someone will not be issued a "Carte Pro'". This could be one of the reasons that the French ministry that deals with sports / activity instructors has decided not to issue one.
The second reason would be where they are not satisfied that the applicant's qualifications.
| Quote: |
Tout éducateur, qu’il soit bénévole ou rémunéré, doit satisfaire à une OBLIGATION D’HONORABILITE (Art. L 212-9 et L 212-10 du code du sport).
Il ne peut en effet exercer ses fonctions s’il a fait l’objet :
- d’une condamnation pour crime ou délit (violence, agression, exhibition sexuelle, trafic et usage de stupéfiants ou de produits dopants, proxénétisme, mise en péril des mineurs, fraude fiscale ou risque causé à autrui de mort ou de blessures),
- d’une mesure administrative d’interdiction de participer à quelque titre que ce soit, à la direction ou à l’encadrement d’institutions et d’organismes soumis à la législation liée à la protection de mineurs accueillis en centre de vacances, de loisirs et de groupement de jeunesse.
Le bulletin n°2 de casier judiciaire est demandé directement par l’administration lors de la déclaration de l’éducateur sportif, permettant ainsi de vérifier les conditions d’honorabilité citées ci-dessus.
|
My carte pro' (issued for non-skiing activities) is renewable every 5 years when you have to do attend a "refresher" type course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| TTT wrote: |
1.He can still work in CH as advertised so not taken away his right to work.
There was a process. SB did not comply. He does not have equivalence to french so no entitlement under EU rules 2.but he has lost license for employing underqualifieds who have no equivalence under EU rules.
Where it gets murky for me is the laws for members. I appreciate company law but long time I since studied and has changed and don't no legal rules for members.
3.People keep saying due process but basi followed aofA so what is the due process that legally has to be followed.That seems to me just to be hearsay until someone can quote me the relevant law. |
1. He may be able to work in CH but what about anywhere else in the world that a L4 BASI ski instructor could work ? So yes they have taken away his ability to work as and where the work is available.
2. Yes he has broken a French rule/law re employing as the french insist under qualified instructors, but remember these instructors could and can work for the ESF in a training school but the french will not allow anyone else but the ESF to have training schools which I think is contrary to EU law.
3. It is irrelevant if BASI followed its AofA if those articles breach someones rights ie the right to be present and make your case for why any disciplinary action should not be applied. Also AofA are not a legal document in the sense that laws of the land and of the EU are. Any company or organisation can write down whatever terms they want but as pam w has said if they conflict with actual law they are not worth the paper they are written on.
TTT I am sorry to say you really do need to listen and take on board what people here are saying, BASI rightly or wrongly expelled SB but they way they did it is what is at issue and in this BASI have been found wanting and the only way they can come out of this without looking like a bunch of incompetent idiots is to sit down with SB ( yes it is their job to sit talk to him first as they would be doing so as an organisation not as any individual who may feel they have been victimised as SB feels).
BASI's AofA are at fault and whoever wrote them if recent, needs to be dealt with as they seem not to comply with modern laws and the rights of an individual.
SB has the right to the MoU and has previously had this, for BASI to say it was a mistake for 2 years is a joke. Are they saying that they are that incompetent ? because to issue something in error for two consecutive years is extreme incompetence. Or are there other reasons that suit BASI but not SB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
french will not allow anyone else but the ESF to have training schools which I think is contrary to EU law.
|
I stand to be corrected  but I believe that other ski schools can act as a training school providing they employ / have a certain number of French qualified instructors. This would seem reasonable if the training school is operating on French territory.
| Quote: |
| remember these instructors could and can work for the ESF in a training school |
Only if these instructors have passed the "Test Technique".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| marksavoie wrote: |
| Quote: |
french will not allow anyone else but the ESF to have training schools which I think is contrary to EU law.
|
I stand to be corrected but I believe that other ski schools can act as a training school providing they employ / have a certain number of French qualified instructors. This would seem reasonable if the training school is operating on French territory.
. |
Indeed but not necessarily legal under the spirit or the letter of EU law. Would be nice to allow that to get tested by non French courts wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@speed098, + 1 Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Here's chapter and verse on what a ski school is required to demonstrate in order to be a "Centre de Formation" in France. Nowhere does it exclude non-ESF ski schools. It would be difficult but no means impossible for a British run ski school established in France to achieve this status.
| Quote: |
| Dans tous les cas, 60 % au moins de l'effectif total de l'école de ski doivent être titulaires d'un des diplômes délivrés par le ministère chargé des sports listés en annexe IX. |
So at least 60% of the instructors must hold a diploma issued by the French Sports Ministry.
| Quote: |
A N N E X E I I I
CRITÈRES DE RECEVABILITÉ DES DEMANDES D'AGRÉMENT ET MODALITÉS DE RETRAIT D'AGRÉMENT DES ÉCOLES DE SKI, DES STRUCTURES FÉDÉRALES D'ENTRAÎNEMENT DE LA FÉDÉRATION FRANÇAISE DE SKI ET DES CONSEILLERS DE STAGE
I. ― Les écoles de ski
1. Les écoles de ski doivent être à jour de leurs obligations légales et réglementaires.
2. Les écoles de ski doivent promouvoir et mettre en œuvre la méthode de l'enseignement du ski français afin de répondre aux exigences du cursus de formation spécifique conduisant à l'obtention du diplôme d'Etat de ski - moniteur national de ski alpin.
3. Les écoles de ski doivent être en capacité d'accueillir simultanément les stagiaires de stages de sensibilisation et d'application :
3.1. Les stagiaires doivent pouvoir intervenir auprès de publics et organismes variés (adultes, enfants, classes transplantées, comités d'entreprise) de niveaux et de pratiques différents (cours collectifs, cours particuliers, toutes les classes du mémento de l'enseignement du ski français) ;
3.2. Afin d'assurer une bonne cohérence entre l'ensemble du dispositif de formation mis en place par l'Ecole nationale des sports de montagne, site de l'Ecole nationale de ski et d'alpinisme, et les stages pédagogiques en situation, l'école de ski doit fonctionner en continuité sur la saison (de l'ouverture à la fermeture de la station de la commune).
L'encadrement doit permettre d'assurer, pendant toute cette période, l'enseignement collectif, simultané et ce de façon progressive et harmonieuse, de toutes les classes de la progression définie dans le mémento de l'enseignement du ski français (adultes et enfants). L'organisation des cours collectifs doit être prépondérante par rapport aux leçons particulières ;
3.3. Les écoles de ski doivent compter au minimum dix moniteurs identifiés au premier jour de l'agrément, diplômés d'Etat travaillant en continuité (de l'ouverture à la fermeture de la station de la commune), titulaires d'un des diplômes permettant d'être conseiller de stage. Dans tous les cas, 60 % au moins de l'effectif total de l'école de ski doivent être titulaires d'un des diplômes délivrés par le ministère chargé des sports listés en annexe IX. Le centre ne peut accueillir plus de stagiaires (de sensibilisation et/ou d'application) que de moniteurs travaillant en continuité au sein du centre et titulaires des diplômes listés en annexe IX.
4. Les écoles de ski agréées en qualité de centres de formation sont tenues d'accompagner le stagiaire sur le plan administratif et de mettre en œuvre les actions de conseil, d'observation, de formation théorique et pratique et de bilan en lien et en cohérence avec l'ensemble du dispositif de formation mis en place par l'Ecole nationale des sports de montagne, site de l'Ecole nationale de ski et d'alpinisme, pour chacun des stages de sensibilisation ou d'application.
5. Les critères ci-dessus définis s'appliquent à l'association nationale visée au septième alinéa de l'article 11. Le respect de ces critères est apprécié au regard de l'ensemble des sites que comprend l'association. Le nombre total de conseillers de stage agréés doit être au moins égal à dix fois le nombre de sites accueillant des stagiaires. L'association doit en outre compter au moins cent cinquante moniteurs de ski, diplômés d'Etat travaillant en continuité, dans au moins quinze sites.
6. A l'occasion d'un contrôle visant à évaluer leur fonctionnement en qualité de centres de formation, les écoles de ski agréées doivent tenir à disposition tous les documents nécessaires au bon déroulement de ce contrôle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| marksavoie wrote: |
| Quote: |
french will not allow anyone else but the ESF to have training schools which I think is contrary to EU law.
|
I stand to be corrected but I believe that other ski schools can act as a training school providing they employ / have a certain number of French qualified instructors. This would seem reasonable if the training school is operating on French territory.
. |
Indeed but not necessarily legal under the spirit or the letter of EU law. Would be nice to allow that to get tested by non French courts wouldn't it? |
If the ski school is training candidates for passing the French diploma (rather than BASI) for example it would be entirely reasonable (and most likely legal) for there to be a requirement for at least 60% of the instructors within the training school to have gone through that system in order to deliver training for that system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@marksavoie,
So at least 60% of the instructors must hold a diploma issued by the French Sports Ministry.
This is the point.They must hold the FRENCH ! Diploma so what use is having an EU directive for equivalency if the FRENCH can say oh! but you still need to have qualified under OUR system.
This is NOT acceptable and BASI should fight this tooth and nail and as vocally as they can.
No it is not acceptable to have French qualified instructors because they are in France they can have EU state qualified instructors ie for the UK BASI qualified. Or are you saying BASI L2 or L3 must receive training from the French ESF and not BASI ?
If 60% have to be ESF how can that be a BASI school by the fact it is majority ESF trained instructors it would be an ESF training school with some BASI instructors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| TTT wrote: |
People keep saying due process but basi followed aofA so what is the due process that legally has to be followed.That seems to me just to be hearsay until someone can quote me the relevant law. |
this.
If he had been kicked out on the basis of a disciplinary hearing, then yes, "process" would not have been followed in this instance. However, the relevant clauses in the A of A relates to the requirements that a member is...
"required to represent his membership of the Company to third parties in a manner consistent with the objects of the Company." (this is the 4(b) referred to below)
And also where membership can be terminated where :
"that member is determined by the Board (at its absolute discretion) to have brought the Company into disrepute, or to have failed to comply with the provisions of article 4(b). The relevant member may appeal to the member’s ombudsman in respect of the Board’s decision and the ombudsman will report his recommendation back to the Board. The Board shall consider the ombudsman’s report and shall make a further determination which shall be final and binding. "
neither clause is contained within, not referred to by any of the clauses relating to disciplinary procedure and are not, therefore, bound by the disciplinary procedure.
It's said that by employing L2 and L3 instructors in France, which is against French law unless you're a training school (which he wasn't) and not only that, but publicly stating the fact on his website, and that those instructors have since gained a criminal record in france based on their employment by him is the part where he's alleged to have brought BASI into disrepute. Whether or not you think those L2 and L3 instructors should be responsible for their own actions is largely irrelevant, as SB was still looking to employ in an illegal manner.
What we will need to wait and see, is whether the AofA are legally enforceable as they stand, or whether it's comparable to things like non-compete clauses in employment contracts or disclaimers of responsibility contracts which cannot actually be upheld in law.
Interesting times... especially for one so new to BASI
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sun 23-11-14 21:56; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@feef, exactly. I keep hearing claims that due process has not been followed and that may be the case but how can SB's supporter come to that conclusion when no one has pointed out why due process has not been followed in terms of the AofA or any relevant law so how do they know that due process has not been followed?
They also claim that they know the law better than a French court when no one has actually read the relevant French law or the entirety of the EU rules so it seems very arrogant to assume they know better than a French court. It may be that the ECJ will eventually decide in SB's favour but all I've had so far is that if you snowplough for enough years it's euivanlent to racing. I'm not convinced.
The courts will decide not SB's mob. Meanwhile I wish for all concerned that they would sort something out but I doubt it as SB seems wedded to the court process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
