Membership of more than one team

[nigel leyland]

I'm had access to the forums of at least 7 groups at the same time in the past, I've taken part in other groups events, have extended training to other groups and can name at least a couple of responders that have been loaned to other groups.

If the second group you are wanting to become a member of, cannot or does no, afford the above to you then the problem lies there, the last thing you should want to do is to promote the attitude by paying for a second membership fee........now ask yourself if you really want to be a member of that a group.

Yes I agree they should be given support, from the nieghbouring group by facilitating them!

Richard, there is no need for associate membership either......the benefit anyone has outlined can be forthcoming without dual membership.

I'll now leave it at that......

[Chris Paul]

Originally Posted by nigel leyland

I'm had access to the forums of at least 7 groups at the same time in the past, I've taken part in other groups events, have extended training to other groups and can name at least a couple of responders that have been loaned to other groups.

If the second group you are wanting to become a member of, cannot or does no, afford the above to you then the problem lies there, the last thing you should want to do is to promote the attitude by paying for a second membership fee........now ask yourself if you really want to be a member of that a group.

Yes I agree they should be given support, from the nieghbouring group by facilitating them!

Richard, there is no need for associate membership either......the benefit anyone has outlined can be forthcoming without dual membership.

I'll now leave it at that......

Having access to their forums is one thing. Having "responder" access to them is another.

It's not that they don't but I am guessing all the planning and details are on their forum. Their forum is for members only and I understand and know the reason why it's not them being difficult or anti social.

The issue is that as you say "the benefit anyone has outlined can be forthcoming without dual membership." and while that may or may not be true it just isn't the case the only people that seem to talk to each other from other groups are the trustees/officers. It just doesn't happen.

[Gordon Brown]

It's an interesting topic, and I'm yet to see a compelling argument for preventing dual membership.

The often cited issue is one of which RT looks after the welfare of a responder in the event of a mutual aid callout (a rare event in any case) and the answer is simple: whichever team engages the responder's services is responsible for them.

In Northants we have a number of responders who volunteer for us and for other voluntary organisations such as Raynet or SAR, both of which are more likely to be called-out at the same time as us than one of our neighbouring 44R teams, and it could be argued the same conflict over 'duty of care' applies - which organisation is looking after them during the incident?

Membership of a team, as opposed to being 'on loan', is far more useful as from a management point of view you will have full information on the responder's vehicle, skills, level of training etc., and know that they are aware of how you work at a local level. In a call-out, which is an especially difficult time for controllers, I'd far rather have the full details for the person I'm sending out from my known-good central records rather than "somebody from Timbuktu 44R is available if you need them - they've got a vehicle of some sort and might have been trained in something".

In terms of skewing the national figures, the variance is going to be negligible in the overall scheme of things. If a responder has joined two teams and paid two membership fees, then the issue of paying twice for the same insurance cover (in most cases it'll be the same national policy anyway) is really neither here nor there.

What seems to be forgotten is that 44R is 31 autonomous organisations, not branches of the same organisation - which is why we have different levels of training, membership arrangements, call-out systems and the like.

In Northants we have no issue with dual membership, or membership of partner organisations (except at trustee level in both cases), but I know that some teams, Wessex for example, forbid it.

In my case, I live in Cambridgeshire and was a member of both BHC and Northants teams (I was a member of Northants before there was a team in Cambridgeshire). I kept the Northants membership because they were far more active than BHC (as well as being a nice bunch of people), and now I'm no longer a member of BHC as I couldn't retain that membership and be a trustee for Northants as it would potentially create a conflict of loyalty, which the Charity Commission's rules say must be avoided - hence Northants's policy on not allowing joint membership at trustee level.

If a group makes a policy decision to exclude members of other teams from joining then that's their decision and I'm sure they have their reasons to do so, but I don't see any compelling reason to prevent it on a national basis.

[Simon Bentley]

Originally Posted by Gordon-Brown

If a group makes a policy decision to exclude members of other teams from joining then that's their decision and I'm sure they have their reasons to do so, but I don't see any compelling reason to prevent it on a national basis.

Nobody has suggested anything regarding a national policy on this.

[james chalkley]

Originally Posted by nigel leyland

Clive, you have effectively cited socialising, communications and events as benefits......no reason a Group cannot extend those to fellow Responders, it's been done across the country for long enough.

James, Your concern is training and competency. I refer you to " ...3. There is a mutual aid policy which includes temporary "Responder loan".(requiring only an information exchange between controllers) ..." Liability mitigated!

Nigel

Yes Liability potentially Mitigated but risk remains in that a responder from a neighbouring team is an unknown quantity. Please dont miss the point im trying to make, I welcome anything that encourages cross boundary working and brings neighbouring groups together, it is after all exactly what we joined up to do.. help others HOWEVER without any set minimum required operational standards, training levels, uniform, communications or even kit across the entire network you must agree that it proves difficult.

I am very fortunate in that I have two very professional and well organised neighbouring teams in Sussex and Surrey however we all three have very different working practices.

[Gordon Brown]

Originally Posted by Simon Bentley

Nobody has suggested anything regarding a national policy on this.

And neither was I, although a number of higher profile members of the wider community are of the opinion that it shouldn't happen which could be misconstrued.

[james chalkley]

Originally Posted by nigel leyland

Clive, you have effectively cited socialising, communications and events as benefits......no reason a Group cannot extend those to fellow Responders, it's been done across the country for long enough.

James, Your concern is training and competency. I refer you to " ...3. There is a mutual aid policy which includes temporary "Responder loan".(requiring only an information exchange between controllers) ..." Liability mitigated!

Nigel

Yes Liability potentially Mitigated but risk remains in that a responder from a neighbouring team is an unknown quantity. Please dont miss the point im trying to make, I welcome anything that encourages cross boundary working and brings neighbouring groups together, it is after all exactly what we joined up to do.. help others HOWEVER without any set minimum required operational standards, training levels, uniform, communications or even kit across the entire network you must agree that it proves difficult.

I am very fortunate in that I have two very professional and well organised neighbouring teams in Sussex and Surrey however we all three have very different working practices.

With regards to belonging to two groups.. I have no issues with that at all but want to make a few points.
firstly any responder that joins my group is required to undergo basic training & has his or her vehicle and kit inspected before being appointed as a responder. this is the same for raw recruits as it is for seasoned veterans from other groups however we do offer an accelerated induction for other responders.
We, as do others operate our own insurance scheme, it is essential therefore that if responding to a callout where both teams are operating the relevant controller is aware so there is no issue with who's liability insurance is covering the activity of said responder.
And thirdly with that in mind a proportion of the membership fee paid goes directly to the cost of that insurance, therefore membership of the group requires the fee to be paid, I have members who are " dual hatted" and although I would dearly like to accept them at zero cost to themselves we do have to pay fees on there behalf therefore we charge them a membership fee.. not ideal but there we have it.

[Simon Bentley]

So far I think this thread has highlighted 2 things.

It would be good if groups would properly extend benefits of membership to responders from other groups.

That common minimum standards for responders would be beneficial under mutual support scenarios

[Clive Slade]

Originally Posted by nigel leyland

Clive, you have effectively cited socialising, communications and events as benefits......no reason a Group cannot extend those to fellow Responders, it's been done across the country for long enough.

James, Your concern is training and competency. I refer you to" ...3. There is a mutual aid policy which includes temporary "Responder loan". (requiring only an information exchange between controllers) ..."Liability mitigated![/COLOR][/COLOR]

I would have thought that Socialising, Communications, and Events are probably the highest benefits, making being the member of a group worth while, so definitely not something to be sniffed at... I guess from what you appear to say is, within 4x4R there are groups that are "just groups", and groups that act and feel like a "Club". Luckily I am a member of a group that the committee and senior members have worked very hard to make into a "club"

Within our group, I have seen members regularly helping other members move trailers, cars and caravans, loan trailers and tools, assist with fixing other's vehicles, work on a members wood land, plus many many other things that are not in anyway 4x4R related.

These people have become friends as well as 4x4 responders, and as a direct result of this internal networking, and the realising of peoples abilities and assets, many fantastic days out have been arranged for all the members of the group... Why would the group members want to extend these already busy and well attended social events to people from other groups, who are completely unknown to them, and who did not put anything into creating this network. It would be like inviting the receptionist of the your dentist office to your child's birthday party, you could do it, but why would you?.

Basically, while we technically pay into our "club" to cover our 4x4R insurance, with all the events, member interaction, plus all the other benefits this creates, it feels like we are getting a lot back for our money, making the membership money feel worth while...

So, here is another reason to be a member of more than one group... if I was ever to move away from Kent, judging by the way you talk, it looks like I peaked by joining SE4x4R as my first group, and will feel very let down should I need to join another one. For that reason alone, I would keep my SE4x4R membership going, just for when I was staying with relatives, and could still enjoy the friendship of the nice guys in the South East.

[Phil Douglas]

we've welcomed members from other groups as responders whilst in our area. the issue as i see it is more about how much access the volunteer gets to private information regarding our group or members as they arent actually an RNE member and whether they can vote at a members business meeting. i hope the responders we've had volunteer to us felt they were welcomed and treated fairly