ISAA Membership

Panserborn

An issue was raised at the IAAA delegate meeting at the weekend concerning vetting of all over 16s in all clubs.

One of the upshots of this was that any member of the ISAA also had to be vetted. AFAIK, currently as soon as someone "joins" a college club they are members of the ISAA, this means we need to vet all the sign ups every year - not really feasable I'm sure you will all agree.

With this in mind, should we formalise a more realistic method of ISAA membership? Some ideas that were thrown around were:

1. Length of time in the club
2. Attendence at x number of training sessions
3. Participation in an IV
4. Gain at least the White Arrow FITA Progression Award

What say ye? This will need to be done before sign-ups, which is soon for most of us. Also, the vetting is not an IAAA thing, its is a legal thing that the Fuzz say we have to do.

ruiner

It's over 18's not 16's.

Panserborn

Oops, my bad.

Renegade_Archer

What's behind this vetting thing? "Child protection"? The thin end of the wedge for licensing?

Panserborn

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

What's behind this vetting thing? "Child protection"? The thin end of the wedge for licensing?

Yup, so we're told. But, its not something we have a choice in unfortunatly. Nor is it something the IAAA has a choice in. I know most of us don't have children in our clubs at varsity level but as college clubs shooting at IVs we are part of ISAA, as ISAA we are associate member clubs of IAAA. In this regard we are required to fulfill the vetting requirements as now imposed on all sporting bodies.

Sparks

Panserborn wrote: »

In this regard we are required to fulfill the vetting requirements as now imposed on all sporting bodies.

Sorry, all my red alarm lights and bells just went off at once.
Are you saying that someone is now requiring that all over-18s in any sports club are required to be vetted if there are under-18s in the club; or just those over-18s who are appointed as supervisors/tutors/coaches/etc to the under-18s?

Or is this more along the lines of the GNAS rule that you must do a beginners course with a GNAS club before you can join that club and GNAS?

Renegade_Archer

One of the few times where I can actually refer to the US as "land of the free", without being sarcastic.

Sparks

Hard to get anyone to change their attitude to the u-18 minders after Swim Ireland, though I get the distinct impression we're on the wrong end of the pendulum swing here

ruiner

Anyone with access to children who is over 18 has to be vetted.

Because people can shoot in more than one club even if there are no children registered as members it is still possible for children to be there, and there will also be children at competitions. That is enough to count as access to children so everyone who has completed a beginners course has to be vetted.

And because the schools and colleges clubs are affiliated they have to do it too. Some colleges have 17 year old members so in the eyes of the law they are children.

The vetting thing is to try to protect children as much as possible. In the states they have Megan's law but I guess the vetting is our version.

It's already been implemented in some bodies like scouting Ireland. I had to be vetted before being allowed onto the site at the jamboree a couple of months ago.

Sparks

Yeesh. So if WTSC held a rifle open and an archery open on the same day, then all the rifle people and all the archery people would have to be vetted ahead of time - or else we'd have to ban under-18s from the events?
Way over on the far end of the pendulum swing

(The country, not the IAAA, that is).

Sparks

Actually, that's rather off-topic (it's more WTSC than ISAA), so I'll take it to email.

Panserborn

Sparks wrote: »

Are you saying that someone is now requiring that all over-18s in any sports club are required to be vetted if there are under-18s in the club

Yup, and with this in mind you see our predicament in the colleges with all the signups we will have. If there is nothing to say otherwise, then all those signups are "members" of the ISAA and then we are responsible for making sure they are vetted - quite an involved process.

I think we need to standardise what an "ISAA member" is before our open days (one week away for us), otherwise we better all get used to paperwork!

Reku

I take it, from the megan's law reference, this is some sort of paedophilic paranoia thing?

Guess we'll need to ask for proof of age before we fraternise with other club members from here on out...
best also make the u18's stay in a separate B&B/hotel when having IV's so, ensure there are no opertunities for all us untrustworthy adults...:rolleyes:

Yup, this is the way to protect all those u18 members... and make them feel extra welcome in the student groups too...:rolleyes:



Think if anyone so much as says hello to me at any shoots/IVs I'll have to rip the piss and start screaming about needing an adult and such....:P

Sparks

You jest farohar, but the under-18s stuff has legislation behind it and I know that our children's officers on the shooting side have been terrified of the legislation for years now because it has real teeth and goes after the people that don't spot a kiddy-fiddler as well as the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.
And given the capacity for deception often shown by such folks, vetting is non-trivial.

And what ruiner is describing is a step up in how this stuff is applied - we're used to having just those who supervise under-18s being required to do the training course and be vetted; now it looks like all members will have to be vetted as well.

And the nasty question is what happens if someone is failed by the vetting process. Who appeals? Can they appeal? Should they? What should the club do in that event? And don't even mention the war in terms of libel. :eek:

Reku

I jest because the application of such to the college groups is so idiotic, next they'll be insisting that all college students are vetted for fear of someone dating one of the few 17 year olds (was 17 myself in first year).
Either they are old enough to attend college and be treated as adults or they should just quit the BS and raise the minimum age to 18 for attending college.

In fact come to think of it the age of consent in Ireland is 17 so no-one can possibly be involved with any of the college shoots who is not of legal age so the vetting of members in the college student clubs thing really does sound like groundless paranoia.

We're old enough that even our parents aren't giving access to any information the college has on us yet not old enough to be considered consenting adults in whatever might go on. Sorry, but I think reading about this idea has to be the best laugh I've had all day.

ruiner

It isn't going to apply to people on a beginners course so you can knock off quite a lot of people that sign up for college clubs. If you set criteria to say that you need to be either a member of the committee, on the team or turn up to so many training sessions then you are still on a beginners course and need to be supervised at all times or something it will help.

And it isn't limited to the club having junior members. It applies to vulnerable adults as well but I don't exactly know what the definition of a vulnerable adult is.

Sparks

I think college is a bit of a wierd case here though farohar. Shooting's in exactly the same bind - our collegiate shooters often start at 17 as well. But no matter how ridiculous it is, the legislation will still put you in the 'joy if you don't do your due diligence and something happens.

Look at it this way - at least you're not the national children's officer, with your backside in a sling if some club you've never been to, run by people you've never heard of, screw the pooch and something happens on their watch. Now that is a terrifying prospect. A knock on the door from the local Garda to bring you in to help with their enquiries because some kiddyfiddler in the Ballynamucksavage club wasn't spotted by their vetting officer? :eek:

Panserborn

ruiner wrote: »

It isn't going to apply to people on a beginners course so you can knock off quite a lot of people that sign up for college clubs

This works for me. So will we leave it up to each college to set their own criteria on who is on a beginners course and who is not?

I haven't read the ISAA constitution recently, but wherever it says who is a member of the ISAA might have to be modified - I assume its more legally binding than any individual clubs constitution .............. I may be wrong though.

As Sparks and Farohar was saying, this whole process is pretty silly at varsity level unless you are in a college for the super-smart and gifted children. Unfortunatly though, as associate members of the IAAA we got to take the good with the bad. Whatever they are required to do by law, we're required to do it as well. We just have to be smart.

Reku

Sparks wrote: »

I think college is a bit of a wierd case here though farohar. Shooting's in exactly the same bind - our collegiate shooters often start at 17 as well. But no matter how ridiculous it is, the legislation will still put you in the 'joy if you don't do your due diligence and something happens.

Look at it this way - at least you're not the national children's officer, with your backside in a sling if some club you've never been to, run by people you've never heard of, screw the pooch and something happens on their watch. Now that is a terrifying prospect. A knock on the door from the local Garda to bring you in to help with their enquiries because some kiddyfiddler in the Ballynamucksavage club wasn't spotted by their vetting officer? :eek:

My point however is that due to age requirements to attend college there cannot be any "kiddy-fiddling" at college level events, it will only be members who wish to attend, or be involved in, non-IV events that will need to be vetted (how on earth do you vet someone for being a paedophile anyway, or are sex offenders public information?).

As for the "vulnerable adults" they undoubtedly mean people who are drunk, and as such if this is truely to be embraced we'll have to have a no-drinking policy at all club related events or gatherings, which would be yet another thing that is preposterous about this paranoia for college clubs.

The only folks in the college clubs I could see this having any real relevance to would be those from the college clubs who are asked to help out with the childrens' summer groups or similar.

Sparks

My point however is that due to age requirements to attend college there cannot be any "kiddy-fiddling" at college level events

...except where an ISAA member goes to an IAAA event where there are IAAA juniors involved. I suppose if ISAA membership was utterly seperate from IAAA membership and one was not sufficient to go to the other's events, that'd cover it as well, but it would have the side effect of splitting the two further apart, which wouldn't strike me as optimal.

As for the "vulnerable adults" they undoubtedly mean people who are drunk

Or who suffer from down's syndrome or aspergers or autism or any other condition of that nature.
And yes, the reason for that legislation does come from a pretty sick and twisted place.

The only folks in the college clubs I could see this having any real relevance to would be those from the college clubs who are asked to help out with the childrens' summer groups or similar.

Yeah, for example at one time DURC used to coach the tetrathlon kids from the pony clubs in air rifle shooting. So you'd have had 17-22 year olds supervising 8-16 year olds.

Renegade_Archer

Trainwreck.

[edit]

Slightly more meaningful contribution: Guys, push back on this. This is an utterly moronic requirement that is no benefit to *anyone* in the student archery scene, and in fact will actively work against us. Find out where this directive came from; who notified the IAAA of this requirement? Is there a pointer to the law this apparently falls under? Why is this happening now? Why haven't we heard more about it in the press?

halenger

I'm with Ewan on this, sheer madness. Good luck to you all with any implementation (seriously - not a jest / similar, I think you'll need it).

Reku

Well I've mockingly (as I've made clear I think applying this to the college archery clubs is a joke) discussed this with some folks in RL and turns out one of them is in fact in the group working on this particular legislation (as in the IAAA are trying to jump the gun as the legislation is not in place yet), apparently it hasn't even been pinned down as to whether it will define the kiddies it refers to as those below legal consent or they'll go for a slightly lower age. So short of a significant turn around the actual legislation should have no application to college groups since we'll all be too old.
So once again I'd say we should ignore it except in instances where members are actually attending an event where there might be children shooting, i.e. non-IV events.

ruiner

I'd suggest you actually talk to the IAAA about it. It wasn't aimed at the students at all but it had a knock on effect.

From the delegates meeting there was still some uncertainty whether it would apply to all college members or not. It will apply to some, you wont be able to get around that and you wont be able to ignore it but you could try to limit it to very small amounts of people.

You are still going to get juniors at IV's. There were under 16's at DCU and UCD last year. And there was the schools versus colleges a few years ago.

Cosine

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

TFind out where this directive came from; who notified the IAAA of this requirement?

The Irish Sports Council.

And the nasty question is what happens if someone is failed by the vetting process. Who appeals? Can they appeal? Should they? What should the club do in that event?

There is no passing and failing in vetting. What it is is your entire criminal record made available to a trusted member of your club. Your club makes the decision if the person is suitable to be part of the club so its their decision not Gerry Deegan's (National childrens officer and Vetting officer).

And don't even mention the war in terms of libel.

The signature at the bottom of the vetting form is to give permission for the information to be made available so you can't be held libel unless you make that information available to every tom, dick and harry.

Sparks

Cosine wrote: »

There is no passing and failing in vetting. What it is is your entire criminal record made available to a trusted member of your club. Your club makes the decision if the person is suitable to be part of the club so its their decision not Gerry Deegan's (National childrens officer and Vetting officer).

Was talking about this with our children's officer last night, and he thinks it's more than just your garda record, it's also whatever reports you got from any clubs the vetee had been in beforehand.

And anyway, you're just shifting the problem from the national vetting officer to the club vetting officer/s, not actually answering it.

Has anyone ever failed vetting and gotten shirty about it? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what protection is in place for the vetting officers in terms of insurance and indemnities, etc?

The signature at the bottom of the vetting form is to give permission for the information to be made available so you can't be held libel unless you make that information available to every tom, dick and harry.

See, you'd think - but if Tom, Dick and Harry all do the beginners course and Tom, Dick and Harry all sign the vetting form, and Tom and Dick are vetted and cleared and invited to join but Harry "fails" vetting and isn't, then if you think Tom and Dick won't talk about what happened, you don't know Irish people very well.
I've met folks in the shooting side of things about whom I have zero hesitation in saying that if they were in Harry's shoes, they'd sue the club for libel through inneundo (ie, you didn't let me in, so you're saying indirectly that I'm a kiddy-fiddler or a crook and therefore defaming me in the eyes of my peers, etc, etc, etc).

Sparks

Oh, and does anyone have a copy of a vetting form they could post up here please? Can't find one on the IAAA website.

ruiner

Vetting for archery wont be required for another couple of months so there aren't any forms yet. As far as I know they will be sent to each club.

Vetting officers have full protection unless they don't take care of someones data and it gets leaked.

Renegade_Archer

What if the vetting officer doesn't like you? Say I drink the vetting officer's milkshake at a given club, or maybe he doesn't like guys with PSE X-Factors.. is there an appeals process? Is there any recourse in the case you *do* have a garda record, and said vetting officer tells everybody all about it over a few pints?

Private Ryan

I've tried to read through all this tread but its tough going. From my take on the comments posted here people do not grasp the fact and are losing the point of the thread. Below I've stated the current situation in facts with a view that people discuss how the ISAA can avoid vetting ALL their members.

1. Vetting is a necessary and legally backed tool to prevent the exploitation of children and vulnerable adults
2. At present any one over the age of 18 can be vetted if they are to come in contact with children or vulnerable adults - this may change to 16 in the coming years
3. Last year the IAAA were approached by the sports council to put two people on a vetting training program. As a result of this training program and other subsequent seminars the IAAA have been asked that they must begin vetting all their members over the age of 18
5. The reason that all IAAA members must be vetted is; A. Archers all compete on the same field no matter of age--B. Inside clubs there is no segregation of children from the rest of the club members i.e. no children only training nights--- therefore anyone who shoots could potentially have access to children.
6. The way in which the IAAA are being required to carry out the vetting is the same as every other organisation in the country. -- The national vetting officer is simply responsible that vetting takes place and to provide the guards with a single point of contact. It is up to the trained club vetting officer to decide whether or not to allow a person into their club.
7. Once you sign the vetting form you give permission for your records to be passed on to club and NGB vetting officers. There are complaints procedures if you think you are at the end of a mistake (incorrect file against your name for example) but once clubs adopt the vetting into their constitutions (which they'll have to do) and it is proven that no errors have been made you have no come back and the club are on legally firm ground refusing someone entry.
8. It is up to the clubs to ensure that their vetting officer is of outstanding character and will perform their duties without malice.
9. The records sent to the club and the IAAA vetting officer are simply a statement of a persons criminal record and do not come with recommendations from the guards. At the training the clubs vetting officer will learn how to interpet the records and how to come to a decision whether or not to let a person in to their club

Finally I'll give my opinion. This is going to cause the colleges a lot of headaches and problems but I feel it is a necessary evil. A lead-in period is allowed for all new members and it is up to the ISAA to find out the maximum allowed time and formulate a plan as how to implement vetting not find a way out of doing it.

Renegade_Archer

Bye guys, I'm never shooting in the Republic again. Seriously.

Reku

The truely laughable aspect of this, and clear indication of it being nothing more than rampant paranoia of paedos lurking around every corner, is the fact that the checks are to see if we can trust folks around kids, we're perfectly happy to give them and train them to use deadly weapons no questions asked.:rolleyes:

But then the really hilarious kicker of this is that it only deals with convicted child molesters rather than doing the sensible thing and ensuring that there is never a situation for the child molesters, whether they have previously been convicted or not, to do anything inappropriate to the children, e.g. the obvious rule of no individual adults alone with a child/children at any time.
Anyone else feel like singing the Simpson's song about doing a half assed job?:rolleyes:

Sparks

Well, now you all know what target shooters feel like at licence application time...

Panserborn

Upshot is, we might think it silly (and I really don't like the nanny culture growing around us either), but it is unavoidable as it is coming from authorities higher than the clubs and the NGBs. It is being imposed on the sporting, educational and social groups all over the place. We can complain, we can whine, we can moan (and we will), but in the end we will need to toe the line so we can do the things and activities we want to do. We just have to go through it, forget it, and move on.

We don't really have a choice in this, but we do need to see to it that it has the least disruption to what we do. We could ignore it, but when it eventually comes in then we'll be biten in the @$$. Dealing with the issue now and immunising our clubs to the full weight of the paperwork and admisistration that is to come will be well advised.

Thats my tupence.

Renegade, I hope you still shoot with us. I imagine this is going on (or will go on) the world over.

Renegade_Archer

In the US, we have Megan's Law.


I am not, under any circumstances, _ever_ going to give my consent to someone from the IAAA to access _any_ information the Gardai have on file about me.

This is pointless won't-somebody-think-of-the-children hand-waving.

How many children this will protect in archery: None.
How many people will this piss off, inconvenience, and easily put off archery: A lot.


Fine, screen the coaches, if you must.


But screening _everyone_?
Reducing access to a club to the whim of a "vetting officer"?
Giving said vetting officer access to sensitive personal data, and relying on their "good character" to keep quiet about it?

Hell no. Hence, no more shooting in the Republic for me.

Reku

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

In the US, we have Megan's Law.


I am not, under any circumstances, _ever_ going to give my consent to someone from the IAAA to access _any_ information the Gardai have on file about me.

This is pointless won't-somebody-think-of-the-children hand-waving.

How many children this will protect in archery: None.
How many people will this piss off, inconvenience, and easily put off archery: A lot.


Fine, screen the coaches, if you must.


But screening _everyone_?
Reducing access to a club to the whim of a "vetting officer"?
Giving said vetting officer access to sensitive personal data, and relying on their "good character" to keep quiet about it?

Hell no. Hence, no more shooting in the Republic for me.

Exactly.
Wait until the numnuts get it into their heads that children can be molested by people giving them a lift in their cars (a lot more likely than them being molested at archery or shooting ranges) so all people applying for driving licences should be vetted.:rolleyes:
Wonder if ice-cream van operators and stafff for shops that wish to sell toys or sweets will also get vetted, I'd imagine they've better odds of luring a child to somewhere private than someone on an archery range...


Remember folks; all those conventions of human rights don't mean a thing we're all paedophiles (i.e. guilty) until proven otherwise.:p

Sparks

Thing is, while I agree with Ewan's disgust and have felt it myself - for ticking someone off, there's nothing quite like being asked to give access to personal information to someone else in order to prove they don't want to rape a child - I don't think the IAAA has any power over whether vetting happens or not.

Shooters have the same outrage every time they get vetted for their licences - yeah mate, I want to murder/rob someone, that's why I drove here to ask you for official state permission to use the firearm I already own - but we know our NGBs don't have any power over whether or not this sort of thing happens. And we're required to give the Gardai access to our medical records and our homes if they ask for it (they already have access to our garda records). Where the NGBs can effect change is in how it's done - so now, for example, our dentist's assistant is no longer considered to be qualified to testify as to our mental state (no, I'm not joking).

What the IAAA could and should do, in my humble-yet-miffed opinion, is to take the idea (that of the call being made by a volunteer vetting officer) out behind the cowshed and shoot it. I don't know what dingleberry thought up the idea of taking the decision out of the hands of the Gardai who are paid professionals operating with legal guidelines and experience in dealing with this sort of thing; but I don't think they thought it through enough.

I know this - I wouldn't volunteer for the job of Vetting Officer. And I can't think of anyone out there who I think would be suitable for such a role. I don't mean in the sport - I mean, I cannot recall ever having met one person in the last 32 years whom I would think was suited to such a role in a volunteer capacity. And if you were suited, you wouldn't volunteer, because the respect you'd need for other's privacy would prevent you taking the job.

But more to the point - no sane person who knows how litigious the Irish public tend to be, should volunteer to be made privy to the garda records of random strangers and made the sole responsible person for deciding if someone can join or not based on that information. Becuase if you vet Tom, Dick and Harry and don't let Harry join on the basis of the vetting, you're going to get to know a barrister sooner or later.

And if Tom ever thinks someone mentioned to his wife of ten years how his record shows he was detained for questioning in a "massage parlour" three years ago, then lots of folks are going to get to know a barrister. And "honest your honour, I never told anyone about that" is not a terribly robust defense when the only other people who knew were Tom and a Garda who's swearing on his uniform that he never broke confidence.


Besides, the Gardai can and do vet people. They've done it before. In the 80s and 90s, Telecom Eireann used to send technicians to the UK to work in a branch called TE Services UK (TESUK). Each and every single one of them was vetted by the Gardai, not for kiddyfiddling but for whether or not they were likely to be smuggling semtex. The procedure was simple - TE gave the Gardai a name, and the Gardai gave back one word - yes or no. Confidentiality never arose as an issue. (Similar arrangements are done for fraud investigations in banks, by the way, it's a very common pattern - you keep confidential information to the bare minimum number of people it has to be known by).

If the Gardai could do it when the decision meant the difference between earning a grand a week in the late 80s or not, then there is no logical reason why they cannot do it now (there's reasons why they might not want to, but that's their problem, not ours).

Sparks

But there's more - who decides how the vetting officer does the vetting in the first place? Are there published guidelines (in which case a yay/nay is actually transmitting confidential information from garda records to the public, and the person who's drawing up the guidelines is going to get to know a barrister at some stage or other as well by someone looking to challange the guidelines) or is it just "make sure there's nothing untoward in there" in which case you could wind up with incredibly unfair decisions.

And how do you catch paedophiles who've not been caught before and so have no record?

And how do the Gardai give the Vetting Officer the records in a secure fashion? Physically? Electronically? Verbally?

And how is it verified that all copies of the information are destroyed after the vetting decision is made? Because as Ewan said above, the VO's good character is simply unacceptable as assurance because if you say the VO is not of good character, you're in a libel lawsuit instantly.

And if the VO destroys all information - including the notes he/she makes during the decision making process - how can they have an appeal to a decision? How can you refer to notes you destroyed? How can you know that the information the VO used to make the decision was accurate if it's been destroyed? And if you say "hold on to it until the applicant isn't going to bring a lawsuit", how long is that? What's the statute of limitations here? And how do you do the long-term secure storage?

And will the VO be required to put in place security measures to protect the information? I mean, I'm required to have a safe for my firearms, so will the VO be required to have one for the documents? To what standard? Who inspects it to be sure it is installed? What if the documents are in electronic format? Who secures and signs off on his/her computer to say it's secure?

The more you think about it, the worse it gets

Sparks

Oh, and since you're talking Garda records and not medical records, and archery uses sharp objects that can and do scratch stuff, does the vetting officer get in trouble (since they've got the call on membership/no membership) if they forget to ask someone if they have AIDS or Hep C and someone else ends up infected through some minor accident? Or do you just expand the mess to allow the vetting officer to see medical records?

Eugh. I want to stop thinking about this...

Panserborn

All of what everyone is saying is true. But unless anyone has any ideas of how we can change the facts of the matter, then we can't avoid it. We can only modify our own documents (internally within the clubs, and at a first degree seperation at ISAA level) to minimise the effect on the actual day to day runnings of our clubs.

Other than that I'm sorry (truely!) to say that it is out of our hands. If we really feel strongly about the issue at a level higher than the ISAA then I encourage (spelling???) attendence at the AGM of the IAAA. This is the only place where the matter can be discussed with a view to moving it forward ........ or backward.

Sparks

Speaking for myself (not a student), I could suffer the indignity of being vetted by the Gardai (again) if everyone else in every other sport where seniors and juniors mix was also vetted, but it's the idea of the vetting officer being a "civilian" that I don't think I could stand. It's just too broken an idea.
Does the IAAA have any oomph to get that particular part of the idea dragged behind the cowshed?

Aryzel

Guys, have ye talked to the Sports Office in UCD or elsewhere? If this vetting is being required of college clubs then they should be already working on the issue and might have solutions. If this is going to be applied to college clubs, then what I expect and what ye should DEMAND of your college sports offices is that the college itself vets ALL students to see if the students should be allowed to join sports clubs. As all the sports/social clubs in the college will be in the exact same situation so every club/socity you join will have to vet you separately. Makes much more sense for the college itself to vet everyone once and make a blacklist of people not allowed to join clubs or socities.

If all college clubs and socities are not being required to vet people, then it means Archery is required to do it only because of your association with the IAAA, the solution is then to no longer be associated with the IAAA. Ye have no need to be associated with them anyways, you do ye're thing with the college league, and anyone that wants to join the IAAA to compete nationally can do so through whatever IAAA club is near them. Talk to the college sports offices, DO NOT work off the IAAA requirements on this one, it is way out of your league (in terms of responsibility, data storage, appeals, etc). If the requirement to vet people is coming down to you through your colleges then they should have a plan and work with that. If the requirement is coming down through the IAAA, then drop your association with them.

In order to drop your association with the IAAA, all you should need to do is:
- Remove any mention of IAAA from rules and consitiution
- ISAA does not attend IAAA meetings or have a place on its board
- ISAA clubs do not join the IAAA
- ISAA members can only join/attend the IAAA through IAAA clubs

Thats about it, can't think of anything else. You can still barrow IAAA equipment and have IAAA people judge at your comptitions. Again this is only needed if the vetting requirements are only coming from the IAAA, if they are coming from the Universities also, then just go with whatever the universities have planned and being associated with the IAAA is fine.


Dermot
PS: Back in Ireland for a few days, will be out for drinks in Messer's on Saturday around 8:30 onwards,
pop by if your up for a few drinks. Heading back to london on sunday to start phd on monday.

Sparks

Went and read the documents on the vetting procedure for Tennis and Swim Ireland. Neither has gone as far as the IAAA in who gets vetted, both are doing it the same way (ie the NGB makes the vetting decision, or more specifically, the national vetting officer).

Thing is - if Swim Ireland, the crowd that brought all this down on us, aren't vetting all their members, only the people who're in charge of things (coaches, team managers, "designated persons" ie, coach helpers, committee members, and so on), why the heck do other sports have to vet everyone who ever takes part in a match? I mean, swim meets in Swim Ireland leave juniors and seniors in the same building at the same time!

I could understand coaches being vetted, and team managers and their helpers - they're left alone in charge of kids, grand, vet them (though I really think this idea of a "civilian" doing the vetting is like jogging through a minefield blindfolded). But if everyone who ever wants to shoot an arrow is required to give a random stranger access to their Garda files and the only security is the lock on the filing cabinet and the good nature of the random stranger, I think there's going to be a recruitment problem sooner rather than later.

Panserborn

Aryzel wrote:

Ye have no need to be associated with them anyways,

Unfortunatly we do in NUIG - only speaking for ourselves though. There are no other clubs anywhere near us except GMIT, same boat as us.

Aryzel wrote:

Heading back to london on sunday to start phd on monday.

Good luck with that! Stay the course, if I (laziest person alive) can get through one its well doable! Check out www.phdcomics.com , its uncanny how accurate it is about PhD life

Aryzel

Sparks wrote: »

...
But if everyone who ever wants to shoot an arrow is required to give a random stranger access to their Garda files and the only security is the lock on the filing cabinet and the good nature of the random stranger, I think there's going to be a recruitment problem sooner rather than later.

Also Sparks, ye are making the assumption that your colleges will allow you to vet people. Its entirely possible that some universities will not allow their archery clubs to do any such thing. Basicaly back to my main point, if universities are bring this vetting in for all clubs then go with whatever method they are planning. If this is only coming from the IAAA then ye really have to drop your association with the IAAA, otherwise ye are opening yourselves to massive legal problems simply because college clubs are in no way capable to doing this job properly.

Panserborn, why do NUIG need to be associatied with IAAA? If your university requires it, then explain that ye will also be required to do vetting, I'm pretty sure they will stop requiring ye to be with IAAA then.

Sparks

Aryzel wrote: »

Also Sparks, ye are making the assumption that your colleges will allow you to vet people.

No Aryzel, WTSC isn't a college club (I'm an interloper in here ). We're only just getting started in archery and we're just preparing to join the IAAA - but we're a long-established target shooting club so if our archery side needs to be vetted, so would our shooting side because there's no junior/senior or archery/shooting segregation.

If this is only coming from the IAAA

The more I look the more I think the IAAA's gotten something a bit wrong - other sports bodies in Ireland don't do this this way, and crowds like GNAS don't do it either, so it's not an Irish thing and it's not an Archery thing.

Panserborn

Aryzel wrote: »

Panserborn, why do NUIG need to be associatied with IAAA?

There are quite a few of us that wish to be as competative as we can. About four of us travel throughout the UK and Europe to shoot - particullarly in Field Archery. To do this we need to be affilated with the IAAA for insurance reasons. Also, for the European champs last year, and the worlds this year, we needed to be FITA registered - IAAA is the only route to this. For IAAA affiilation we need our home club on board with them.

Sparks wrote:

WTSC isn't a college club (I'm an interloper in here)

No you're not, most of us here are current or former college archers but its not just for the colleges - all archers of all persuasions and sources welcome :)

Sparks

Panserborn wrote: »

No you're not, most of us here are current or former college archers but its not just for the colleges - all archers of all persuasions and sources welcome :)

Good to know!
Besides, I'm not a student, but I am academic staff (albiet in TCD), so I'm sort-of-collegy

Aryzel

Panserborn wrote: »

There are quite a few of us that wish to be as competative as we can. About four of us travel throughout the UK and Europe to shoot - particullarly in Field Archery. To do this we need to be affilated with the IAAA for insurance reasons. Also, for the European champs last year, and the worlds this year, we needed to be FITA registered - IAAA is the only route to this. For IAAA affiilation we need our home club on board with them.

Ahh I see, sorry to nitpick, but that just means you prefer NUIG to be part of the IAAA, not that you need to be part of the IAAA. Those of ye that want to compete national/internationally could join the IAAA through Galway Archers. Same applies to the other college clubs, the only real cost to removing your assoication with the IAAA is that people would need to join an IAAA club in order to compete national. Oh wait, did you mean international student competitions? You still don't need your university club to be part of the IAAA to go to those competitions, you just need to be part of the IAAA which you can do through Galway Archers, etc.

Aryzel

Sorry to be arkward here, but just trying to make the point that if dropping your association with the IAAA removes the need to setup this whole vetting thing, then it is excellent solution with very little real costs to the college clubs or the league. The single biggest advantage for college clubs to be part of the IAAA is that it makes it saves money and hassle for the few members that are competitive enough to go to national competitions.

There is another solution to ye're problem though, that would allow ye to drop the associsiation of college clubs with the IAAA (removing the vetting problem) but still allow ye to keep the advantages. Set up a dummy/paper archery club. The Irish Student Archery Club, it would be just a normal member of the IAAA, just like any old club, but would be run by a couple of the students, set entry requirements at 18years, and could charge just the bare minimum for members to join (just enough to cover the cost of the club joining the IAAA) it would have no grounds, no equipment, etc. Just a paper club that would give an easy, cheap and controlled access point for college archers to join the IAAA and remove any vetting requirements from the main college clubs.

Hmm, something just occured to me, is the IAAA execting all normal clubs to vet themselves, or is the IAAA itself vetting everyone (which is what it should be and what you should demand of the IAAA). The IAAA should be vetting people, not the individual clubs, that goes at the full IAAA club level not just the colleges.

ruiner

A lot of work was done to affiliated the colleges to the IAAA. It seems a bit extreme to drop everything before seeing what other solutions there are.

At the delegates meeting two answers were given in regards to the colleges being vetted. You could potentially knock it down to a handful of people.

You may not be able to use IAAA judges. The IV shoots will be removed from the calendar and there will be nothing to stop someone else running a shoot on the same day so there may not be any free judges. Also the judges could say no to doing your shoots. I'm not saying they will but IV shoots would be given the lowest priority.

You will loose the 10Eur shooting only fee.

Clubs who run outdoor shoots not on their own campus wont be able to anymore such as DIT who use Dublin Archers field.

The vetting process for archery was decided upon by the gardai not by the IAAA.