Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
[Sept. 10] NTSA AGM
Options
Comments
-
Clash wrote:In your opinion, here's mine on the failed motions. Maybe this can start a debate, so everyone put away your prejudices and let's do this like adults
It is rather a large topic, but we're hesitant to split up the thread.OK, I'm not sure on this one, there are serious risks inherent on either side of this argument. My view is this would require a meeting all to itself, with a lot more input and information than I have at my disposal right now. Can we leave this to a seperate thread?
And I would feel that if something is being done at the top table in my name, I don't want it to be something that you wouldn't stand behind in public. Want to bad-mouth someone without the proof in hand? Go down the pub. Want to bitch about how some shooters are a pain in the ass to deal with? Go down the pub. Want to bitch about how annoying the DoJ can be for us? Go down the pub. And so on.OK, this is a bit like the discussion over publication of cabinet meeting minutes. On that argument, I felt that the possibility of publication probably would lead to a less than frank exchange of views and create a dysfunctional atmosphere, where business would be second to self-preservation.
If, on the other hand, you're arguing over where funding should go, I want to know what the reasoning was. And since it's my money (through dues and taxes), and the decision as to where it's spent affects me (since it's my sport), I feel I have a right to that knowledge.
Affiliation fee is currently €40 for clubs and €15 for individuals, who must apply through the clubs. Which means that as you graduate from college, you're dropped from the net.In view of the accusations of the meeting being stuffed, wouldn't it be even easier (and cheaper) under those rules? I don't know what the net effect on the NTSA budget would be, but I would have thought that the affiliation fee was quite low as it is. Anybody?
The "pay nothing for the first year" idea would show us how much interest there was in the sport every year (College clubs get up to 700-odd members joining each year) and from the number who continued to remain in, we get an idea of the active membership (College clubs would have a turnover rate above 50% - people join, try it once or twice, then can decide it's not for them and walk off, or they can just lose interest, or they can just join for the party and not bother to shoot, etc, etc. Active membership tends to be near the hundred mark in the big years for DURC).
The motion has several motives;- Gather information on the number of people shooting in the sport at present - if it really only is 120-odd people, then something's astray, because there are 298 people on the books in DURC right now, and over a hundred of those would have been active through termtime.
- Make membership of the NGB more accessible to collegiate students and juniors. Those who believe that reducing the fee from €15 to €2 will have no impact are... somewhat out of touch with the financial situation of students.
- Increase the membership of the NGB.
- Increase and maintain the database of contacts for the NGB.
- Increase the weight behind the NGB's grant applications. Consider the plausible responses to a request for funding for 100 people versus one for 600 people (and that's just adding the college clubs to the current membership).
Have we ever tried it?Again, not sure about this one. Would having a shoot supported by the NTSA be any better attended than ones not supported?
And I would argue that were the prizes better (at least at the lower levels of the sport), there might be more motivation to compete; but a club that must break even usually skimps on the prizes (if I had a euro for the number of times I've seen eyes roll at cheap dodgy dogs' gravestones for prizes...). If the NTSA was providing prizes for a years' worth of competitions, savings could be made by bulk buying custom medals or the like.
But without the funds, what can the clubs do to counter such problems? Let's say the problem was facilities; what can the club do about that without cash? And there are numerous other possibilities, but for once, I'd like to see someone not say "well, it's the shooters, isn't it? Damn lazy sods don't know they're born. Wouldn't happen in my day, oh no, in my day we were down the range morning, noon and night and we set record scores and we were princes among men..."If that's the point that is. And if it's to support club shoots, perhaps a better approach would be to find out what is reducing support and tackle that, rather than giving money to clubs to keep them in funds.
So that we have an idea before we go of what result we should expect, and that afterwards we see what it was that we did that helped us towards that goal and what it was that we could do better, and what it was that just plain didn't work. We send off a shooter to a world cup; he comes in last. Do we blame him? Or do we notice that we sent him without a team manager, a coach, any backup whatsoever? Or is it down to an act-of-god type equipment failure or whatever? What lessons do we learn from it for next time? How do we do our best to ensure that noone else ever has to see their name in that spot on the list? What do we have to do?The purpose being?
If all you have is a "What I Did Last Summer" type of report, you learn nothing. You need others to ask questions you wouldn't have thought of yourself, you need to review what happened and analyse both the successes and the failures in order to improve.
It does sound odd... right up until you're trying to set a qualifying score in the last registered shoot for the year and the windspeed is pushing thirty knots...This is starting to sound like the cricket forum
That's referring to creating a communications network so every club's PRO has a means to contact every other club's PRO and the national PRO, either to look for help in promoting an event or to get details on something they've been asked about, or whatever. It also helps them pass on information to the others as well.Is this not a bit OTT? According to reports there are only about 120 members of the NTSA, that's less than most clubs in the UK!
That having them all together was loads of fun.Agreed, what was the rationale for those opposing?
The disadvantages are numerous: College clubs cut out of the Nationals, huge requirements being placed on manpower for the organisers, shooters being forced to travel a hundred miles between ranges, off-season training schedules being scrapped because there no longer is an off-season, training for a specific national championships event no longer being possible as they're all run at the same time (except for the 25yd Indoor Nationals, which apparently isn't a "real" nationals), and the scores for the events all went down from last year (except for the 3P where the winning score increased by one point, but it's the first event of the four that were run that weekend). The Nationals, don't forget, is a registered shoot - so by running it like this, you're imposing a choice on shooters; do they want to make the National Squad (in which case, train for one event and shoot it to the exclusion of others), or do they want to go for the National Championships (in which case the same is effectively true), or do they just want to go away and shoot for a weekend (in which case, happy days).
I think it comes down to what you want - I just had this idea that the NGB of olympic target shooting would want to improve both participation and performance, as opposed to participation alone.
I've no problem with that at all - so long as the interests of the student and junior shooters aren't sacrificed for those of the senior and master shooters!That's the one I espoused here, make no apologies for, and makes it no less valid.
And by the way, what everyone seems to forget with collegiate shooters is that they graduate. And become young, relatively high-earning professionals in most cases. And thus have an amount of disposable income that can be put towards the sport. Which means, in the medium to long term, more shooters with better equipment in more clubs. Since UCDRC was founded, a very conservative estimate would say that we've graduated 10,000 trained shooters from DURC and UCDRC, at levels from recreational plinker through National Champion level to International level. Imagine how healthy the sport would be now, if we'd paid sufficient attention to the beginner's end of the sport to keep even a small fraction of them involved!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'm just going to jump in here and discuss a couple of topics. I'll look at some of the other ones as time permits. Good work Clash on starting the ball rolling.
I'm of the opinion that you're being a bit simplistic here Sparks. I'm sure that quite a few committee meetings are taken up with referring to people in uncomplimentary terms, however I would imagine that some discussions could involve the names or opinions of third parties, who would not like their (third hand) words published in print. Then you have to edit the minutes, either to avoid possible legal consequences or an argy bargy about whether or not a said x to b. This is just off the top of my head btw. I know of situations in other committees I have sat on, where certain directions of the discussion would have had peoples heads in baskets when the revolution came.Sparks wrote:And I would feel that if something is being done at the top table in my name, I don't want it to be something that you wouldn't stand behind in public. Want to bad-mouth someone without the proof in hand? Go down the pub. Want to bitch about how some shooters are a pain in the ass to deal with? Go down the pub. Want to bitch about how annoying the DoJ can be for us? Go down the pub. And so on.
Sparks, I think you have a bit of emotional baggage about minutesIf, on the other hand, you're arguing over where funding should go, I want to know what the reasoning was. And since it's my money (through dues and taxes), and the decision as to where it's spent affects me (since it's my sport), I feel I have a right to that knowledge. And if you remember, the last time this was discussed, I supported your right to see previous minutes while you were on the committee. However, I did not support the right of everyone to see them.
My fundamental belief, is that we elect a committee to run the association in our best interests, to the best of their ability. If they do not do so, they are removed at the following AGM. We do not elect them, and then look over their shoulder at every opportunity and question their every decision. Sure, we can question them when we see something we don't agree with and they have the right to accept or discard whatever view we articulate, and to coin your phrase 'grumble down the pub' when they disagree with us, but we gave them the job to do, and they should be allowed the time and space to do that job.
If you want to know these things, why not just ask? If you don't trust the answer to be honest, are you going to trust a set of edited minutes? At the end of the day, funding questions will be answered in the accounts and at the AGM. But here's a question for you; How many other bodies publish the minutes of their private management meetings?.
If I sat on a committee, and was asked by a member to publish the minutes of meetings I attended, I would see that as a fundamental mistrust of the decision making process and my own integrity. Is this in essence at the heart of your request?, and can you honestly say that you have asked this of other committees that represented your interests in other walks of your life?
Out of time, gotta go.....0 -
-
I'm not sure it's so much simplistic as a case of different philosophies rrpc!rrpc wrote:I'm of the opinion that you're being a bit simplistic here Sparks.
An accurate summation of the current situation. However, I would argue that the correct solution is not to hide away that it's done; but to stop doing it in the first place.I'm sure that quite a few committee meetings are taken up with referring to people in uncomplimentary terms, however I would imagine that some discussions could involve the names or opinions of third parties, who would not like their (third hand) words published in print. Then you have to edit the minutes, either to avoid possible legal consequences or an argy bargy about whether or not a said x to b.
When the committee meets, and I know they usually don't think this way because it sounds terribly puffed-up, but they are meeting to make decisions in all our names. That's got a bit of weight behind it, and the decisions do impact us. So I'd like to see it undertaken with a bit less frivolity and a bit more of a sense of procedure, equitability, even decorum!
I remember it well rrpc, but I doubt feeling annoyance at an annoying action can qualify as emotional baggage!Sparks, I think you have a bit of emotional baggage about minutes And if you remember, the last time this was discussed, I supported your right to see previous minutes while you were on the committee. However, I did not support the right of everyone to see them.
It does raise the interesting point; how will the new committee members get up to speed on developments over the past 18 months, since they are not permitted to see those minutes?My fundamental belief, is that we elect a committee to run the association in our best interests, to the best of their ability. If they do not do so, they are removed at the following AGM. We do not elect them, and then look over their shoulder at every opportunity and question their every decision. Sure, we can question them when we see something we don't agree with and they have the right to accept or discard whatever view we articulate, and to coin your phrase 'grumble down the pub' when they disagree with us, but we gave them the job to do, and they should be allowed the time and space to do that job.
I can understand the sentiment rrpc, but I don't agree with it for several reasons:- The NTSA doesn't work like that. What actually happens is that the committee is elected, and then we hear very, very little about them and damn near nothing from them until the next AGM. We have no means of judging their performance, no metrics, no goals stated and reported on, no idea of what they did. How then, to make that judgement at the AGM every year?
- Minutes are not transcripts. Minutes are a record of decisions made and tasks allocated and reports given and so forth. The minutes are a summary of the meeting's results, not a full transcript of every word said during the meeting. The closest I'd expect to see to that in the minutes would be the points of view considered in deciding on matters of importance (such as what to prioritise for funding for the year and so on). It is wholly possible to both keep the membership fully informed and hold the meetings in camera.
- It's our association. That the members take an interest in what it does in our names should be a goal for the committee to strive for, not something to discourage and block. Why? Because who's going to be the next committee? One of our biggest problems is manpower. Yet Ireland is known internationally as having a high proportion of people who will volunteer. (The Year of the Volunteer was only two or three years ago, and much of this was discussed at the time). However, among the prime factors in what encourages people to volunteer for a job is knowing precisely what is required of those who take up that job and how it's done. People, in general, don't volunteer for a job whose tasks they don't know, and whose requirements they can't guess at.
- We're an olympic sport with a long and proud history, and I'm sick to my gills of us always hiding away. I'm sick of us keeping everything under wraps. I'm sick of us not promoting ourselves and pushing information out there. And this is a facet of that.
I did. When on committee. And was denied access to the minutes. And besides, you have to know what to ask before you can ask it!If you want to know these things, why not just ask?
No, but if there is a set of minutes showing what a decision is, then you can see if the committee follows up on that decision and thus judge if they're a good committee or a bad one, so you can make a decision on their re-election at the AGM.If you don't trust the answer to be honest, are you going to trust a set of edited minutes?
Would you insist on keeping your own actions in that room secret then? And the decisions made? How would you handle a direct question at the AGM so? It's not a logically consistent position to withhold information during the year, only to be questioned on it directly in public and on the record at the end of the year!If I sat on a committee, and was asked by a member to publish the minutes of meetings I attended, I would see that as a fundamental mistrust of the decision making process and my own integrity.
My answer is that I'm not interested in emulating other organisations; I'm interested in setting an example for them to follow!But here's a question for you; How many other bodies publish the minutes of their private management meetings?.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
When the cabinet meets, the same applies, and yet no government however much they puff out their chests in opposition on the matter has never agreed to publish the minutesSparks wrote:When the committee meets, and I know they usually don't think this way because it sounds terribly puffed-up, but they are meeting to make decisions in all our names. That's got a bit of weight behind it, and the decisions do impact us. So I'd like to see it undertaken with a bit less frivolity and a bit more of a sense of procedure, equitability, even decorum!
Well it was pretty much admitted at the EGM, that it was giving them to you that they had a problem with for whatever reason, real or imagined. Other members seemed to have no problem getting them which presumably holds true today.I remember it well rrpc, but I doubt feeling annoyance at an annoying action can qualify as emotional baggage! It does raise the interesting point; how will the new committee members get up to speed on developments over the past 18 months, since they are not permitted to see those minutes?
Well they have goals now!, Motions were passed at the AGM, that must be followed on. We're not a big community, I think we'd notice if club level coaches were not appointed and trained for one.The NTSA doesn't work like that. What actually happens is that the committee is elected, and then we hear very, very little about them and damn near nothing from them until the next AGM. We have no means of judging their performance, no metrics, no goals stated and reported on, no idea of what they did. How then, to make that judgement at the AGM every year?
Don't patronise me, I know what minutes are, I used to take them for limited companies among other committees and boards I sat on. And they are supposed to be an accurate representation of the discussions and decisions made at a meeting. Their purpose is to act as a record of the meeting and a roadmap for the committee members as to what actions each needs to take and the timescale for taking them. The members of the committee are accountable to each other and to those who appoint them to carry out the functions of the organisation to the best of their ability in an orderly and timely fashion. I well remember old minute books with a 'For Action' column to record the name(s) of the person(s) designated to carry out tasks agreed at the meeting.Minutes are not transcripts. Minutes are a record of decisions made and tasks allocated and reports given and so forth. The minutes are a summary of the meeting's results, not a full transcript of every word said during the meeting. The closest I'd expect to see to that in the minutes would be the points of view considered in deciding on matters of importance (such as what to prioritise for funding for the year and so on). It is wholly possible to both keep the membership fully informed and hold the meetings in camera.
Minutes were never designed or intended to be published generally, as this would create a further workload for the committee in dealing with issues again and again and again, as ordinary members would take up time discussing decisions made on an ongoing basis and thus bringing the proper business of the committee to a halt.
This one gets trotted out all the time, and it's meaningless! We devolve the decision making process to a committee or a board, and we question them at the AGM, that's the system that works time and again throughout the worldIt's our association.
Taking an interest is a good thing, and need not be exclusive of seeing the minutes. As I said before, there are many ways to oversee a committee, and they do not require sight of minutes to do so.That the members take an interest in what it does in our names should be a goal for the committee to strive for, not something to discourage and block.
Really?, so you've no idea what a treasurer, secretary, PRO, target rifle coordinator etc. etc does???Why? Because who's going to be the next committee?...snipped...is knowing precisely what is required of those who take up that job and how it's done. People, in general, don't volunteer for a job whose tasks they don't know, and whose requirements they can't guess at.
No, it's not. See above.We're an olympic sport with a long and proud history, and I'm sick to my gills of us always hiding away. I'm sick of us keeping everything under wraps. I'm sick of us not promoting ourselves and pushing information out there. And this is a facet of that.
If you don't know what it is, how do you know it's a problem? This is getting strangely existentialI did. When on committee. And was denied access to the minutes. And besides, you have to know what to ask before you can ask it!
You don't need minutes to see that. I've made decisions in the past about the suitability of people for posts based on their performance of set tasks that always existed for that post. If they can't do the standard stuff, then they can't do the rest either. Looking at minutes is just nit-picking, it smacks of trawling through reams of documentation for the purposes of standing up and saying 'Aha! Gotcha!'. Maybe that's a simplification, but I've stood up on my hind legs in public and called people to task for not carrying out their duties correctly, and I did not need minutes to do that.No, but if there is a set of minutes showing what a decision is, then you can see if the committee follows up on that decision and thus judge if they're a good committee or a bad one, so you can make a decision on their re-election at the AGM.
Yes, I would. I would require the agreement of all present at the meeting before I divulged what they had said and what way they had argued. Decisions made 'in that room' would be public knowledge when they were implemented, and would not be secret per se before implementation, nor would a general discussion on other possible courses of action. However, I would not be second guessed after the fact, or be browbeaten into returning to a decision already made unless there was new, previously undisclosed information available that would materially alter that decision.Would you insist on keeping your own actions in that room secret then? And the decisions made?
Answer it truthfully! All members of the committee are present at the AGM, and therefore available to discuss their contribution to the debate. The logic is simple. The AGM is where the committee outlines it's work during the year and answers the questions of members as to it's successes or failures. They are not mutually exclusive.How would you handle a direct question at the AGM so? It's not a logically consistent position to withhold information during the year, only to be questioned on it directly in public and on the record at the end of the year!
Try looking at it this way. Decision X is reached at a committee meeting after a long discussion which also threw up alternative decisions A, B, C, D & E. X was reached as a best fit for all facets of the organisation. The minutes are published, and member A comes along and puts forward decision F which is a mixture of A & E. The committee say we didn't look at that one, so we'll go back and discuss it. Next meeting the discussion starts again and decision F it is decided is the way to go. However after the minutes are published member B comes along with an alternative suggestion G, which again is discussed and this time rejected as it would impact on group D. the minutes are published and member B is up in arms because he says member A has too much influence on the committee, and got his proposal through. The committee are forced to review the situation again at a subsequent meeting which comes up with decision X again. End result, four meetings same result, and a lot of lost time, decision X does not get rolled out until just before the AGM, when the committee have to listen to heated arguments about undue influence etc. etc. If minutes are not published decision X is reached, rolled out, and at the next AGM, is discussed in a rational manner with on the ground feedback as to how it could be tightened up , improved etc. in an open meeting where everyone gets their say.
You tell me which is better, and before you say it, it is hypothetical, but also sadly true, as I've seen this kind of thing going on, and it's never minuted.My answer is that I'm not interested in emulating other organisations; I'm interested in setting an example for them to follow! My your god complex is looking shiny today sir.
I gather that we are not going to agree on this one, and that's fine by me. Here's a final thought though; A camel is a horse designed by a committee, what you would get by publishing minutes is a committee to the nth degree and you wouldn't even get the camel.0 -
-
True, but RRPC, isn't it fair to say that you and I know more about the NTSA committee than many shooters, since we've both been involved in it at one point or another?Maybe that's a simplification, but I've stood up on my hind legs in public and called people to task for not carrying out their duties correctly, and I did not need minutes to do that.However, I would not be second guessed after the fact, or be browbeaten into returning to a decision already made unless there was new, previously undisclosed information available that would materially alter that decision.
I'm not sure how you get from reporting the decision reached with being required to return to it. However, if there is serious dissent over a decision, and it is possible to return to it to ensure a greater level of consensus, is this not the better thing to do for the good of the organisation?
And that would be a difference between yourself and some of those that were on last year's committee!Answer it truthfully!
But that rarely happens. This year saw a perfunctory report for an 18-month period, and it was a particularly bad example; but in general, there isn't enough detail of what was done during the year available unless you were monitoring it yourself, and the reports are never available ahead of time (though credit where it's due, the treasurer's accounts were available ahead of time this year, and kudos to the treasurer for doing that), so people don't have time to reflect on them and so there are rarely questions on the day; though they often surface hours or days later.The logic is simple. The AGM is where the committee outlines it's work during the year and answers the questions of members as to it's successes or failures.Try looking at it this way. ... End result, four meetings same result, and a lot of lost time, decision X does not get rolled out until just before the AGM, when the committee have to listen to heated arguments about undue influence etc. etc. If minutes are not published decision X is reached, rolled out, and at the next AGM, is discussed in a rational manner with on the ground feedback as to how it could be tightened up , improved etc. in an open meeting where everyone gets their say.
The problem here, is that you're assuming noone is doing work on solution X until all the arguments end; and since these only come up at the monthly meetings, you'd have to be not bothering to do any work after a solution was agreed the first time for it to become even possible. Also; you're forgetting that the agenda is published in advance of the meetings, so we see what decisions are going to be made and that means people have an opportunity to put forward their views to the committee and the committee can take them on board to avoid the later arguments. (I say can, that doesn't mean it happens - the only input to the decision on the Nationals this year was a formal written protest from DURC against the plan to put the Nationals as one single festival-type event because it cut them from the air rifle nationals; and that was ignored, brushed aside as though it didn't matter. That attitude is far more important as a factor in why you get the arguments!
Oh, bleh rrpc, you know me personally well enough to know that's not a god complex, it's pride in the shooters we have. I mean, seriously. We have the world championship gold medal in the shotgun team's display cabinet, along with numerous team and individual medals in gold and bronze from various world cups and european championships; the air rifle juniors have taken medals from bisley every time they've gone there; we've a sterling reputation abroad on the international circuit; and we've good people who put their backs into all aspects of the shooting community, even if we desperately need more! My your god complex is looking shiny today sir.
How the hell can you not want to shout to the world about that and say "look at us: this is how you're meant to do it!"???
I don't mind not agreeing with you rrpc; at least you're willing to give your reasoning about things! I still believe that we should be doing this, even if it's only as a trial for a year, however.I gather that we are not going to agree on this one, and that's fine by me.
And yet, I'm thinking; if everyone feels they have a voice at the top table which is actually heard and listened to; where would the arguments stem from then?Here's a final thought though; A camel is a horse designed by a committee, what you would get by publishing minutes is a committee to the nth degree and you wouldn't even get the camel. 0 -
I'm not going to quote from your two posts, as this thread is getting needlessly wordy, but here are a few points that spring to mind.
The first is trust. It is apparent that you fundamentally lack trust in the NTSA committee, and that is why you are looking for minutes. I understand where that lack of trust comes from, but I don't believe that publication of minutes is going to help in this regard. If anything it will widen the gulf between you and the committee, as you see in yourself the role of overseer of their actions, and they see in you a nuisance to be avoided at all costs. There is no quick fix to this situation, it will require a great degree of compromise and co-operation on both sides over a prolonged period to solve.
Real solutions to these problems need to be found, for the organisation to move forward in a more harmonious manner. You have made good points regarding failings in the past, but your solution would exacerbate the lack of trust inherent in the current relationship. To take the past minutes issue as a case in point: Your solution is to read the past minutes to read yourself into the job. A more elegant solution would be a detailed job description, along with contact numbers, names and other data that would help to complete the job efficiently. This could be updated regularly and would be far easier for a new incumbent than trawling through minutes ad nauseam.
The other problem with going through old minutes, is that they are just that; old. New committees should be brimming with new ideas, not focussing on the past. I'm sure that experiences from the past can help to illuminate decisions for the future., but these are the broad brush strokes that everyone in shooting is aware of, and not the minutiae of past arguments and discussion records.
You're nitpicking my hypothetical scenario. I thought it was too long already, but if you wanted me to write a book.... The camel is a horse analogy gets the point across just as well. And if you publish minutes just after a meeting, submissions will start coming in before any decision is rolled out. I am minded of Clint Eastwoods comment in one of the 'Dirty Harry' movies "Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.".
Having brought a large number of motions to the AGM, and having the greater number of them passed, I was under the impression that some sort of rapprochement was under way, and was encouraged to see this. I know that one or two that you had set great store by did not make it, but I thought it was a start. I was hoping to see a discussion develop on this board about the failed motions, but apart from clash and yourself and myself, no-one else seems to have got involved other than in slagging matches.
It does not appear that you can set up a poll on this board, but it would be interesting to have one on each topic, after a bit of debate has taken place, such as this one on minutes between yourself and myself. It would be interesting to see if the members here echoed the views of the members at the AGM.
Regarding the removal of the discussion topic on the NTSA website, I hadn't read it, but some of the comments were reproduced here, and some were more than a little insulting. Now I know you can say that criticism is a good thing, but I've also taken part in discussions on other sports clubs forums, and that sort of thing just never appears. It's not good for an association to be seen to be infighting all the time, and worse still to be publishing some puerile criticisms of itself on its own website.
Of course there will be dissent. If there's dissent at the top table with small numbers involved, imagine adding 120 voices to the clamour?. Better I think, for each club to put a member forward for a job on the committee, and to have that member as a focal point for that club's interests. It's a smaller verion of constituency politics, but it's been around a long time.Sparks wrote:And yet, I'm thinking; if everyone feels they have a voice at the top table which is actually heard and listened to; where would the arguments stem from then?
And btw, I was never involved on the NTSA committee
In conclusion, here's a couple of new motions ot chew over.
1. All posts on the committee should carry a detailed job description, along with attached addendum containing all data necessary to carry out that job. The job description should be kept up to date and sent out to members along with the notice of the AGM.
Reason: So that putative members of the committee know what they are letting themselves in for.
2. All officers of the Association should prepare a detailed report of their activities throughout the year, such report to be circulated to members along with the notice of The AGM.
Reason: So that questions may be prepared in advance of the AGM, and to allow more time at the AGM for debate.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Now we're getting places!tireur wrote:OK Sparks just so you know where I stand:
Bad because of allowing parochial selfishness to let others divide and conquer1. That the NTSA immediately withdraw from the NRPAI and seek independent recognition from the Irish Sports Council, the Federation of Irish Sports, the Department of Justice and other relevant bodies; but that our withdrawl not be contingent on such recognition.
You're wrong here tireur. This is the "let's all stand together" argument, I've heard it a thousand times before. Thing is, I keep noticing that the current situation is not all shooters standing together - it's certain shooters being forced to bow the knee before other shooters. If the NTSA is to stand with other shooters, it must first be able to stand!
And I also have to point out, that the loudest proponents of the current setup are those to whom the shooters are expected to bow the knee...
Unfortunately, that's true - and that totally bypasses the entire point of the motion, namely, to let the members give their views to the committee before a decision is made, instead of being reduced to complaining afterwards, with all the ill-feeling that that generates!Obvious and easy The Agenda will usually not change from mtg to mtg
Then maybe granny should have learnt to case her pistol when leaving the firing line rather than learning how to suck eggs...Passed Teaching granny to suck eggs
Ah, but where was the pistol coordination in the year-and-a-bit since they were reintroduced? Sometimes the obvious doesn't get done5. That the NTSA appoint a dedicated cartridge pistol coordinator for smallbore and fullbore pistol events; and charge him with the oversight of the reestablishment of pistol shooting in the republic.
Passed
As above
As was explained on the day, we need to increase membership. Nothing thus far has worked. If we keep going this way, we'll have to have a fight at every AGM to keep the numbers up. Remember, the average age of a licenced firearms owner in Ireland is a fair whack north of 40. We need new blood in the sport (pardon the poor choice of words) - and keeping students and juniors in the NGB is a good step forward. And anyone that thinks that students have lots of money lying about had better not be earning his living from trying to be a market analyst!A recipe for reducing income without increasing membership. Evidence of confused thinking
Not. As was explained in the meeting by the chap sitting to my left (who holds a national championship medal or two in 50m shooting) and the chap behind me (who holds a few more and has shot for Ireland in 50m matches abroad), it was a measure that tried to, in a practical and realistic manner, make the process of maintaining national averages a bit fairer.
Ludicrous nit picking11. That a maximum wind velocity be set for outdoor matches beyond which scores will not be counted for national ranking purposes.
Which were explained on the day quite well. We've actually had discipline coordinators who tried this and were slapped down for it by the committee, so I suspect that not all motives were fully explained on this one.Definition problems
How can it work informally? Do you know who all the PROs are? Their phone numbers? Who to call in the national or local press? The network was meant to provide a means to get all that information to club PROs. And as to why it didn't get passed, this was the point in the meeting where the Quote of the AGM was uttered: accountability only stymies the system.Should be working informally
As I specifically stated, on the record at the time, "realistic" means, at a base level, that the PRO doesn't have to pay for the costs of the NTSA newsletter out of his own pocket again.What is realistic?
That would be the committee's job. Appoint someone to do it if you need a dedicated person; otherwise, have everyone try to get funding from one company per month. That's what, 48 companies tried per year?OK who will do it?
And the protests of those that the decision cut out of the nationals mean nothing, do they?Committe should decide matters such as this each year based on the exigencies of the prevailing situations
I do hope they don't make the same misinterpretation. Those goals are what the committee are going to do, not what they're going to ask people to do. And before you say that it's too much to ask for, this is precisely what I did when I was on the committee. Written, submitted goals. And every month, a list of what my progress towards those goals had been. And as a result, whenever I had a spare hour to give to the NTSA, I had a list of things I could work on, rather than have to faff about for 50 minutes trying to think of what to do for the remaining ten!OK. I hope they get all clubs to help,
Because not everyone in the clubs know who they are or what their records are.They are all volunteers. Why turn it into a beauty parade.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement