Do you want the minutes etc posted here from FCP meetings ?

bunny shooter

Open to scrutiny or not ?

rrpc

Right bunny, I'm also looking for the minutes of IPSA meetings, NTSA meetings, SSAI meetings and cabinet meetings.

Anyone got any other meetings they want to add to bunnies wish list?

thehair

bunny shooter wrote: »

Open to scrutiny or not ?

yes thank you. steve

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Right bunny, I'm also looking for the minutes of IPSA meetings, NTSA meetings, SSAI meetings and cabinet meetings.

Anyone got any other meetings they want to add to bunnies wish list?

Put up a poll and we'll see can get them for you ?

Sparks

I don't think here is the appropriate place for them, but that's because I think they should be up on the FCP, NTSA, IPSA and SSAI websites (we've had this discussion many, many times before). That said, if any of those bodies want to use here for that purpose, I'd have zero problem with it.

rrpc

Myself and Sparks have had a long discussion (battle even?) about this very topic a long time ago on boards. I'm sure it's still in the archives somewhere, but I don't have time to search it out now.

My view, which I still hold is that publishing minutes can lead to dysfunctional behaviour on committees. If everyone present knows that they are going to be quoted in public, then they are less likely to say anything of any substance or to give their heartfelt opinion on a topic.

Furthermore, heated arguments which can happen often enough can give a very distorted view of proceedings and even of individuals which can affect them long after the heat of battle has subsided. Things can be said in the heat of the moment that the participants will soon forget about when agreement is reached, but which if published may cause them to remain entrenched, making compromise or agreement impossible.

It's a risk nobody wants to take in most cases. If the Good Friday Agreement talks had been published at the time, I doubt very much if we would have had a peace process.

Rovi

While utter and complete transparency and openness is entirely laudable and would, in an ideal world, be absolutely the right thing to do, we don't live in an ideal world.
I don't know how many here have ever served on a committee or in a negotiation of any sort, but my experience of such forums tells me that for things to actually work, there has to be some degree of confidentiality (and confidence in that confidentiality) to proceedings so that the participants can discuss and debate sensitive subjects without constantly having to pander to their own constituency or make themselves hostages to the opposition's constituency.
Take the OJ Simpson trial for example: televised to the world with the result that theatrics, slick presentation, style, and outright showmanship became at least as important as the merits of the case, and (as far as most of the world is concerned) the team that spent the most money and put on the best 'show' won.

It's a bit like communism: a great idea in principle, but a disaster when implemented by ordinary humans with ordinary human failings.

I'd love for the whole proceedings to be held and minuted in public, but I understand and appreciate the need for confidentiality and discretion.
As such, so long as there are reasonably frequent statements and updates from the participants, I'll content myself with the status quo. For the moment...

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Myself and Sparks have had a long discussion (battle even?) about this very topic a long time ago on boards.

I'm happy with the 'battle' term

My view, which I still hold is that publishing minutes can lead to dysfunctional behaviour on committees. If everyone present knows that they are going to be quoted in public, then they are less likely to say anything of any substance or to give their heartfelt opinion on a topic.

And mine, which I still hold as well , is that if they wouldn't stand behind their opinion in public, they've no business using it to decide how they represent others. I think at this point though, there's no real way to debate to an agreement - people tend to fall into one camp or the other and changing is damn difficult.

Furthermore, heated arguments which can happen often enough can give a very distorted view of proceedings and even of individuals which can affect them long after the heat of battle has subsided. Things can be said in the heat of the moment that the participants will soon forget about when agreement is reached, but which if published may cause them to remain entrenched, making compromise or agreement impossible.

Oddly, there I'd agree. But that, to me at least, is the difference between minutes and transcripts (I actually think you should have both, but there's no need to disclose the transcripts since "ehm, ahm, er, I dunno, anyone want coffee?" for six pages doesn't do anyone much good). You kindof need a good secretary really. Hell, if you can get someone to do the job on a paid professional basis (there are services for this sort of thing), then wahoo (though I know of few NGBs that could afford it, certainly the NTSA can't right now ).

It's a risk nobody wants to take in most cases. If the Good Friday Agreement talks had been published at the time, I doubt very much if we would have had a peace process.

On the other hand, Dail, Seanad and Committee transcripts are published daily and are filmed and streamed to the web live, to Oireachtas Report every day or so on RTE, and will be going to the new Irish digital channel that's intended to be our CPAN. In other words, you can do work this way, it's just a philosophical question at the core of it. And for us, there has also been a historical tendency to lean towards the camp of keeping everything hidden away, given the siege atmosphere we've had for decades - maybe the FCP will become our peace process and we'll go from secret meetings to meetings reported on by live web streaming

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I'm happy with the 'battle' term

At least we're consistent

On the other hand, Dail, Seanad and Committee transcripts are published daily and are filmed and streamed to the web live, to Oireachtas Report every day or so on RTE, and will be going to the new Irish digital channel that's intended to be our CPAN. In other words, you can do work this way, it's just a philosophical question at the core of it.

Though I have to say that watching Oireachtais report is hardly illuminating and is something akin to watching a car crash in ultra slow motion.

Some things you're better off not seeing

Sparks

True, but that's because you're looking at the formal deciding of dozens of things at the same time; it wasn't like that when we were watching the CJB debates in here.

rrpc

rrpc wrote: »

Myself and Sparks have had a long discussion (battle even?) about this very topic a long time ago on boards. I'm sure it's still in the archives somewhere, but I don't have time to search it out now.

My view, which I still hold is that publishing minutes can lead to dysfunctional behaviour on committees. If everyone present knows that they are going to be quoted in public, then they are less likely to say anything of any substance or to give their heartfelt opinion on a topic.

Furthermore, heated arguments which can happen often enough can give a very distorted view of proceedings and even of individuals which can affect them long after the heat of battle has subsided. Things can be said in the heat of the moment that the participants will soon forget about when agreement is reached, but which if published may cause them to remain entrenched, making compromise or agreement impossible.

It's a risk nobody wants to take in most cases. If the Good Friday Agreement talks had been published at the time, I doubt very much if we would have had a peace process.

I agree with RRPC - this is the reason that ECB minutes are not published, as to do so would mean that the 'real' discussions would take place elsewhere.

thehair

at the end of the day we the sports shooter of ireland(32) counties
i hope will have our own (peace process) for the good or better and i thank all the people that work so hard for NOTHING for sports shooting
and all of our interest at HEART:) THANK YOU steve

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with RRPC - this is the reason that ECB minutes are not published, as to do so would mean that the 'real' discussions would take place elsewhere.

The thing is, those meetings are not meant to be where you discuss stuff. The ideal is that you go work up an idea (a feasability study if you will), circulate it for discussion to the entire committee with any supporting docs, post it to an agenda with supporting docs, then the meeting just formalises the yay/nay decision and posting it on the agenda gives an avenue for members to give their opinion for consideration. Post the minutes of that and it's hard to see a problem. The idea isn't to keep an eye on people (though in the past that's been a consideration and it does fulfill that function), but to keep the membership informed. Otherwise the committee risks becoming irrelevant because noone knows what they do. I'll grant you, it's an approach influenced by doing the PRO role for waaaaay too long, but it's not invalid because of that. Hell zara, you were complaining to me not too long ago that you didn't see what was happening in the NTSA after the consultation process we went through with people.

patbundy

sparks what about posting up an end report listing what was talked about and what agreements were made.
its the lack of information is the problem

Vegeta

Yeah maybe a common ground can be found

A "what everyone is currently working on and towards" and regular updates.

I've said it in other threads but we are getting practically nothing from the FCP bar what individuals are picking up and posting on

Sparks

Pat, just to be clear, I'm not on the FCP, I wouldn't have access to that information.
I do think we ought to, mainly because from what I have seen, a lot of people are doing a lot of work, and getting zero credit for it.

cavan shooter

I voted no,
I think certain discussions are best kept in private, and in doing so more value is gained from the trust developed between to opposing sides in an argument. I have seen various discussions on this forum turn into open warfare (no offence to Moderators who have a difficult task and do it well IMO) I am an NARGC member, I have not been let down by representative of the NARGC in relation to the FCP and they have my trust to decide, at present, what the best interests are in relation to the (my) sport.

The FCP is an excellent idea, we have for the first time discussions on issues which affect shooting communities being discussed at policy level. It has my support in the way it is being progressed..

Bananaman

When I originally asked the question it was not to get actual transcripts of the meetings

In essence these meeting happen on a somewhat regular basis. I am sure there is an agenda posted with certain decisions pending for those meetings.

The end result of those meeting will be either further points for discussion, decisions made, deadlines for implementation, etc.

What I would like to see is the concrete stuff, decsions made, implementation deadlines set, etc.

As to ongoing discussions. These are basically farts in the wind until they are tied down anyway and will only create more rumourm innuendo and conspiracy theory than anything else by publicising them prior to the outcome, and as people pointed out may lead to the scuppering of the intended outcome by simply virtue of being made public.

But I would like to see the "results" of these meetings. Which is in essence the concrete progress of the FCP. How and where they are published, I do not care.

B'Man

Vegeta

Bananaman wrote: »

But I would like to see the "results" of these meetings. Which is in essence the concrete progress of the FCP. How and where they are published, I do not care.

B'Man

Pretty much what I was trying to say above. Two thumbs up from me

Dr_Teeth

I don't think transcripts/minutes etc will be helpful, I'm with rrpc on the idea that it would stifle debate and lead to the important stuff being discussed elsewhere on the sly.

However I would like to see list of "Actions and Decisions" that have been agreed be distributed after each meeting so we can all have an idea what's going on, without getting into the minutae of who said what to whom.

Sparks

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

I don't think transcripts/minutes etc will be helpful, I'm with rrpc on the idea that it would stifle debate and lead to the important stuff being discussed elsewhere on the sly.
However I would like to see list of "Actions and Decisions" that have been agreed be distributed after each meeting so we can all have an idea what's going on, without getting into the minutae of who said what to whom.

Reading this (and similar stuff from other people) I'm starting to think that there's confusion as to the difference between minutes and transcripts...

Clash

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

I don't think transcripts/minutes etc will be helpful, I'm with rrpc on the idea that it would stifle debate and lead to the important stuff being discussed elsewhere on the sly.

However I would like to see list of "Actions and Decisions" that have been agreed be distributed after each meeting so we can all have an idea what's going on, without getting into the minutae of who said what to whom.

From what i've read here about the FCP it seems it doesn't work like that. They appear to have a number of subcommittees working on different areas and each one then comes back to the main Panel and discuss their findings which are then amended, go back to the subs and eventually a position is reached.

So a good many meetings happen before an issue is fully resolved. The report at the end of March showed a lot of work had been done since November and then outlined what the next areas were.

I'd hardly expect something this early seeing as they've had a conference to prepare for and run in the meantime.

Bananaman

Sparks,

I'm not bothered what we call them. Minutes, Hours, Transcripts, Postscripts.
My question seems to have got angry, turned green and torn it's shirt off.

Let's stick with "outcomes" as that is what I am interested in - the rest are of no interest to me. I do not care who made the decision or who seconded it or who countered it. Just that it was made.

We are all quite happy that something as laudable as the FCP has been formed and that it will allow progress to be made on subjects which everyone danced around in the past.

Now, whether this happens or not I have no say in. Nobody will ask me for my opinion.

Therefore the only yardstick, for me and my fellow non-political shooters, for how the FCP is progressing, is the actual decisions that are being made. The outcome of these meetings.

Now I understand that having a Government, a Police Force, a load of NGBs and I'm sure a few stuffed shirts will not a fast process make so we could be looking at a couple of months to a quarter between decisions or agreements. So be it.

I would just like to know if, when these decisions or agreements are reached, whether the policy of the FCP, rather than the members of the FCP, is to publicise them in any manner.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Sparks,
I'm not bothered what we call them. Minutes, Hours, Transcripts, Postscripts.

Missed my point there. Minutes are just a summary of what decisions were taken, what actions will be taken, that kind of thing, and so far everyone seems to be asking for those, at one level of detail or another. Transcripts are the word-for-word records of everything said in meetings and which everyone is balking at.

I would just like to know if, when these decisions or agreements are reached, whether the policy of the FCP, rather than the members of the FCP, is to publicise them in any manner.

In other words, the Minutes.

bunny shooter

Mods would you please close this thread ?