Outcome of Public Meeting

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.