CSIA - Perry Schmunk is out???

[Slasher]

Doesn't seem like a friendly "departure" ... does anyone know the back story? And what was the deal with Warren Jobbitt getting turfed a few years ago?

 

[Jilly]

Oh my...the board got their way then....

 

[Slasher]

Oh my...the board got their way then....

But why?

 

[Jilly]

Are you a CSIA member.? There is a further email out.

 

[Jilly]

Warren, John Gillies, Jean Martin....all turfed at the same time. Politics.

 

[Slasher]

Are you a CSIA member.? There is a further email out.

I am. You mean the "Campaign to Save the CSIA"? It has some vague stuff about "governance", "professionalization", etc. ... but what are the concrete issues? Do they want to roll back the Level 4 Academy???

 

[James]

Seems a lot of the good csia videos have been gone for awhile . John Gillies had a great one on natural stance. Haven’t been able to find iit.

 

[Jilly]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqfRxHq-2Gqem66yhxjwJag?view_as=subscriber

for all the old video's. New ones are on vimeo.

 

[latitudes]

The CSIA is politically a mess right now. Removing Perry Schmunk is just the latest ousting as part of this whole debacle. Allison Sharpe (Ontario representative to the National Board & Board Chair) was removed a few months ago; illegally, according to the (several) emails her lawyers sent to the entire membership.

Honestly I don't think anyone not directly involved really knows what's going on. I've heard everything from sexism to complaints with new ethics procedures( allegedly some of it has to do with certain members looking out for friends on the technical committee who are under ethics investigations).

Both sides of this conflict should just send out a clear summary of their views on what's happening, and how they intend to fix it, rather than the constant stream of zero-context emails, aggressive facebook posts, and removals that we're currently seeing. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Yepow]

"The politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low!"

 

[Jilly]

Both sides of this conflict should just send out a clear summary of their views on what's happening, and how they intend to fix it, rather than the constant stream of zero-context emails, aggressive facebook posts, and removals that we're currently seeing. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Oh, I so agree. I lost 2 1/2 hours of an evening on that Zoom call. Something needs to happen.

I also need to add that I've been a member since 1982....And at my age...I'm thinking...WTF!

 

[rustypouch]

I was at the spring fling, and it really wasn't talked about, at least in the conversations I was a part of.

 

[MattFromCanada]

I was at the spring fling, and it really wasn't talked about, at least in the conversations I was a part of.

Were you at the BC spring fling?

As far as I can tell, from having talked about it to some former members of the Ontario board (who had nothing to do with the current debacle) the Ont. board is dominated by a few individuals who have taken issue with the Academy process.

For those who aren’t in the CSIA, in short, to become a Level 4, one must pass the Trainer Development Exam (aka the TD, aka pedagogy) followed by a selection camp (aka an entrance exam). Upon completing those two tasks, one can attend the “academy,” of three separate four day camps. Each camp is graded on the same standards as the exam, with your camp scores counting towards 70% of your final grade. The exam then accounts for 30% of the final grade, taking a bunch of pressure off of the exam.

The results have been great thus far, with 36 individuals passing this winter, as opposed to 10 in the last year under the old system.

What the Ontario board seems to have a problem with is, this system makes attending the Level 4 camp impossible for those who don’t have a hope in hell of passing. Because you need to pass the entrance ski test, people who used to use the old Level 4 course as a 5 day hangout with friends aren’t able to attend anymore.

In the past it wasn’t uncommon to have a bunch of people who had no intention of ever attempting the exam attending the course, taking the examiners’ attention away from all the keeners.

Plus, the academy system has been very controversial amongst the old guard, who believe it’s watering down the standard, and that having a rapidly-aging pool of Level 4s to run courses is a good thing.

I’ve even heard of chatter like “are you a Pre-Perry Level 4 or a Post-Perry?”


Nobody is clear on either side what is actually going on, but there’s some seriously heavy hitters on the “Save the CSIA” side, who are well known and highly esteemed in the organization, including higher ups at Whistler Blackcomb. It’s going to be a mess.

 

[Bendzeekneez]

Warren, John Gillies, Jean Martin....all turfed at the same time. Politics.

They were fired in Perry's first year. He restructured pre pandemic.

There was a lot of change. In 2020-21 that was not well communicated or received.

Were you at the BC spring fling?

As far as I can tell, from having talked about it to some former members of the Ontario board (who had nothing to do with the current debacle) the Ont. board is dominated by a few individuals who have taken issue with the Academy process.

For those who aren’t in the CSIA, in short, to become a Level 4, one must pass the Trainer Development Exam (aka the TD, aka pedagogy) followed by a selection camp (aka an entrance exam). Upon completing those two tasks, one can attend the “academy,” of three separate four day camps. Each camp is graded on the same standards as the exam, with your camp scores counting towards 70% of your final grade. The exam then accounts for 30% of the final grade, taking a bunch of pressure off of the exam.

The results have been great thus far, with 36 individuals passing this winter, as opposed to 10 in the last year under the old system.

What the Ontario board seems to have a problem with is, this system makes attending the Level 4 camp impossible for those who don’t have a hope in hell of passing. Because you need to pass the entrance ski test, people who used to use the old Level 4 course as a 5 day hangout with friends aren’t able to attend anymore.

In the past it wasn’t uncommon to have a bunch of people who had no intention of ever attempting the exam attending the course, taking the examiners’ attention away from all the keeners.

Plus, the academy system has been very controversial amongst the old guard, who believe it’s watering down the standard, and that having a rapidly-aging pool of Level 4s to run courses is a good thing.

I’ve even heard of chatter like “are you a Pre-Perry Level 4 or a Post-Perry?”


Nobody is clear on either side what is actually going on, but there’s some seriously heavy hitters on the “Save the CSIA” side, who are well known and highly esteemed in the organization, including higher ups at Whistler Blackcomb. It’s going to be a mess.

There are thoughts across the spectrum with opinions on the L4 academy.

The exam is weighted at 30% the camps at 70%. So a candidate can attend the exam and get 5's (a fail in the exam) and still pass the L4 if their marks on camps were good enough. You can have a bad exam under pressure or just ski/teach badly and still make it through.

Some L4 evaluators feel that a Level 4 should be able to teach and ski the standard on demand (like the L3 exam is 100% of the mark) others feel a longer term assessment over the camps can be more beneficial and create better results.

The race was removed from the L4 for unknown reasons.

My snow school director (250+ staff in Western Canada) has stated he feels the standard is lower now.

There was a letter written within the 1st year from around 200 course conductors with some issues with the way the MD was running the organization. This letter of concern spoke about many issues, it is attached.

Have the issues raised in this letter been rectified? Some have some were ignored.

The Technical Committee (volunteers that helps the staff develop content, material and the curriculum) was suspended in December of this year by the MD, no communication as to why. Some of these volunteers were on one side of the L4 academy debate (standard is lower) others were ok with it.

The CSIA is politically a mess right now. Removing Perry Schmunk is just the latest ousting as part of this whole debacle. Allison Sharpe (Ontario representative to the National Board & Board Chair) was removed a few months ago; illegally, according to the (several) emails her lawyers sent to the entire membership.

Honestly I don't think anyone not directly involved really knows what's going on. I've heard everything from sexism to complaints with new ethics procedures( allegedly some of it has to do with certain members looking out for friends on the technical committee who are under ethics investigations).

Both sides of this conflict should just send out a clear summary of their views on what's happening, and how they intend to fix it, rather than the constant stream of zero-context emails, aggressive facebook posts, and removals that we're currently seeing. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Alison's removal was not illegal and was done via the bylaws.

Technical Committee has been suspended with no official reason provided. Ethics investigations are not ongoing - you can check the National Board Meeting Minutes for this.

Aggressive facebook posts are of course against all the social media policies that each member signs when signing up for their membership. Those who do this will risk loss of membership.

I am. You mean the "Campaign to Save the CSIA"? It has some vague stuff about "governance", "professionalization", etc. ... but what are the concrete issues? Do they want to roll back the Level 4 Academy???

They wish to add 7 more members to the board of directors. They have been headhunted by the "save the csia" folks (there are 7 of these folks who started the campaign). These folks are "Pro Perry".

A larger board would be beneficial to the membership.

Should the "save the csia" folks be the ones to pick those new board members? Do the rest of the membership deserve a say in who should sit on the board?

 

[Mike King]

What a mess.

 

[Jilly]

Thank you @Bendzeekneez . Interesting read.

I agree that the board needs to be larger. There are 4 provinces with the most members and maybe they are not being served by only having 1 board member. But they need to do it right, not just appoint/anoint people. The membership needs to have a say too.

I never realized just what the L4 Academy was all about. Never going to get there, so wasn't interested. I just thought it was training to get to L4, not being tested. Maybe it needs to be evaluated since the first batch is out.

I saw Perry before the Western Convention in 2019 on the hill. I wasn't impressed. As for Alison, I couldn't understand why when she only 5 weeks left to go in her term, this whole thing had to blow up then. Also the timing, she was in Levi.

 

[Slasher]

Some L4 evaluators feel that a Level 4 should be able to teach and ski the standard on demand (like the L3 exam is 100% of the mark) others feel a longer term assessment over the camps can be more beneficial and create better results.

Interesting, coz in Perry’s recent Interski presentation, he mentioned that the next step would be to expand the Academy to Level 3 also.

 

[Jilly]

Messaging with one of the WIS ladies....there is another letter from 25 members about the treatment of Alison etc.

 

[rustypouch]

Were you at the BC spring fling?

As far as I can tell, from having talked about it to some former members of the Ontario board (who had nothing to do with the current debacle) the Ont. board is dominated by a few individuals who have taken issue with the Academy process.

For those who aren’t in the CSIA, in short, to become a Level 4, one must pass the Trainer Development Exam (aka the TD, aka pedagogy) followed by a selection camp (aka an entrance exam). Upon completing those two tasks, one can attend the “academy,” of three separate four day camps. Each camp is graded on the same standards as the exam, with your camp scores counting towards 70% of your final grade. The exam then accounts for 30% of the final grade, taking a bunch of pressure off of the exam.

The results have been great thus far, with 36 individuals passing this winter, as opposed to 10 in the last year under the old system.

What the Ontario board seems to have a problem with is, this system makes attending the Level 4 camp impossible for those who don’t have a hope in hell of passing. Because you need to pass the entrance ski test, people who used to use the old Level 4 course as a 5 day hangout with friends aren’t able to attend anymore.

In the past it wasn’t uncommon to have a bunch of people who had no intention of ever attempting the exam attending the course, taking the examiners’ attention away from all the keeners.

Plus, the academy system has been very controversial amongst the old guard, who believe it’s watering down the standard, and that having a rapidly-aging pool of Level 4s to run courses is a good thing.

I’ve even heard of chatter like “are you a Pre-Perry Level 4 or a Post-Perry?”


Nobody is clear on either side what is actually going on, but there’s some seriously heavy hitters on the “Save the CSIA” side, who are well known and highly esteemed in the organization, including higher ups at Whistler Blackcomb. It’s going to be a mess.

No, the one in Banff.

I don't mind the camp. I know of several L2s who have no intention of ever teaching, just use it for the cheap lessons from L4s.

Agreed about the pool of aging L4s. I heard complaints about them not being able to do tasks they ask of their students.

 

[TheApprentice]

Reading this just makes me laugh. It was only a matter of time until an organization almost completely dominated by people who care for nothing but positions of power turned on itself. Wish I had some popcorn so I could enjoy it even more. If the csia goes down, then good riddance. Maybe it'll allow people who actually care about teaching people how to ski take the reigns rather than people trying to make a "cool kids club"