Ntsa Agm 2006

Sparks

The NTSA AGM has been announced for September 23rd in UCD. Official notice attached.





Two motions put forward by the Board, to do with adding Child Protection policies to the articles and procedures of the NTSA.

Sparks

More motions submitted by the Wilkinstown Target Shooting Club:

NTSA AGM 2006
Motions for the Agenda

1. That this meeting be resolved to be the 2006 AGM of the NTSA.
   
2. That the NTSA be acknowleged to be a body set up for the purpose of serving and facilitiating the competitive endeavours of its constituent shooters.
   
3. That the NTSA be resolved to work with its constituent clubs and not against them.
   
4. 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.
   
5. That the NTSA officially note the passing of one of its founder members, Paddy Ashe, and that it officially apologise to his family and friends for not having made such an official note at the events organised in his memory in the past year.
   
6. That the NTSA committee explain the sudden and unprecedented rise in the number of subscribed members of the NTSA immediately prior to the 2006 AGM and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members.
   
7. That the NTSA present a report on the attendance of directors at Committee meetings through the year.
   
8. That the consumption of alcohol and other prohibited substances be banned at Director's Meetings of the NTSA.
   
9. That the NTSA board members submit seperate written reports for their year's activities.
   
10. That the minutes of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website and made available to all NTSA members with the exception of the AntiDoping and Disciplinary committees, whose meetings should not be held concurrently with other meetings.
    
11. That the NTSA seek an immediate review of the ISC Carding Grant system.
    
12. That the NTSA end the practise of using NSRA targets for ISSF competitions and either adopt the NSRA rulebook for use with NSRA targets or only run ISSF matches with ISSF targets.
    
13. That the NTSA ensure that a shooter's personal coach is given the opportunity to travel abroad as a part of the National Team with the shooter when such a coach exists.
    
14. That the NTSA develop a full 18-month plan for International competition, to be reviewed every six months, which will incorporate which matches it intends to send shooters to; how many places will be made available for each match; and what level of funding will be available for those shooters.
    
15. That the NTSA appoint a Fundraising Officer and create a Fundraising Subcommittee to be chaired by the Fundraising Officer for the purpose of raising funds for the Association above and beyond those granted to it by the Irish Sports Council through the NRPAI.
    
16. That the NTSA appoint a qualified Medical Officer.
    
17. That the NTSA report what price was quoted as the consultancy fee for a Medical officer and by whom that quote was issued.
    
18. That the NTSA explain to the membership why they are being called to vote on a motion to appoint a children's protection policy this year when the Board voted against a motion to appoint a Children's Officer last year.
    
19. That the NTSA report in detail on communications it has received from the Irish Sports Council in regard to Child Protection policy statements.
    
20. That the NTSA report in detail on communications it has received from the National Rifle and Pistol Association of Ireland in regard to Child Protection policy statements.
    
21. That the NTSA, in light of its motion to amend the Articles of Association to read "The NTSA is fully committed to safeguarding the well being of its members", state in detail what actions it intends to take over the coming year to achieve this goal, and to also list what it sees as threats to the well being of its members.
    
22. That the NTSA, in light of its motion to amend the Articles of Association to read "Every individual in the NTSA should at all times, show respect and understanding for members rights" enumerate fully and specifically what the members' rights are.
    
23. That the NTSA explain why it did not perform equipment control checks on the National Team's equipment before the 2006 World Championships.
    
24. That the NTSA explain why Mark Dennehy was only asked to handle equipment control checks by the NTSA 22 hours before the Team departed for Zagreb.
    
25. That the NTSA report in detail on their contacts with the National Association for Modern Pentathlon.
    
26. That the NTSA report in detail on their contacts with the Irish Pony Club.
    
27. That the NTSA report in detail on their contacts with the Paralympic Council of Ireland.
    
28. That older NTSA websites - still extant years after the official NTSA ruling that the targetshootingireland.org website was the sole official NTSA website - be deleted and replaced with automatic redirections to the official website.
    
29. That the NTSA issue all of the prizes which it has so far defaulted on distributing.
    
30. That the NTSA list in its calendar for the 2006-2007 year dates for both the 2007 AGM and submission deadlines for motions for the 2007 AGM.
    
31. That the NTSA explain why, despite the 2005 AGM motion, they failed to publish the agenda of all NTSA committee meetings on the NTSA website at least 3 days before committee meetings.
    
32. That the NTSA publish on the NTSA website a detailed agenda of all NTSA committee meetings at least one week in advance.
    
33. That the NTSA explain why, despite the 2005 AGM motion, they failed to institute a programme of pistol safety courses for its members.
    
34. That the NTSA report on progress made on the 2005 AGM motion to 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.
    
35. That the NTSA explain why, despite the 2005 AGM motion, they failed to publish a monthly newsletter.
    
36. That the NTSA report on progress made on the 2005 AGM motion to maintain outdoor and indoor prone rifle shooting averages, rankings and classifications seperately.
    
37. That the NTSA explain why, despite the 2005 AGM motion, they failed to appoint representatives of all NTSA clubs to a subcommittee to review the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the NTSA, despite their altering of those Articles in this AGM.
    
38. That the NTSA report on progress made on the 2005 AGM motion to institute an internal appeals process for cases where formal complaints are made to the committee.
    
39. That the NTSA report on progress made on the 2005 AGM motion to appoint a Ladies' Officer and that they present said officer's annual report.
    
40. That the NTSA report on progress made on the 2005 AGM motion to appoint a Collegiate Officer and that they present said officer's annual report.
    
41. That the NTSA report on progress made on the 2005 AGM motion to appoint a Development Officer and that they present said officer's annual report.
    
42. That the NTSA report on progress made on the 2005 AGM motion to commit to have at least one club-level coach accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each NTSA club within two years; and that at least one club-level coach be accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each new NTSA club within two years of the club affiliating to the NTSA.
    
43. That the NTSA explain why the planned NTSA club coaches course was not handed off to either Geoff Cooney or Matt Fox, both ISSF-qualified and highly experienced coaches who had helped draft the course syllabus, when Ray Kane was deployed abroad and thus unable to continue work on this course.
    
44. That the NTSA report how much was allocated as a budget for public relations in the 2005-2006 year and on what it was spent.
    
45. That the NTSA report in detail on their efforts to secure corporate sponsorship for the National Squad.
    
46. That the NTSA report on what ethical guidelines for acceptable sponsorship were put in place before efforts began and by whom.
    
47. That the NTSA report in detail on the grant application made under the Capital Grants Scheme in accordance with the 2005 AGM motion for the purposes of purchasing equipment that could be used nationally, such as electronic target scoring machines, equipment control gauges and so on.
    
48. That the NTSA provide a copy of this Capital Grants Scheme application.
    
49. That the NTSA change its membership fees to the following structure:
    Club Affiliation fee: ?50 per annum
    Individual Membership:
    First year, through an NTSA club: free
    First year, not through an NTSA club: ?2 student / ?5 adult
    Subsequent years: ?2 student / ?5 adult
    Optional extras:
    Newsletter: ?20 per annum or ?2 per copy
    
50. That the NTSA arrange for an insurance scheme to provide insurance cover for its members.
    

Sparks

continued (the numbering has been thrown out of sync by boards.ie's posting I'm afraid) ...
[list=52]
[*]That each NTSA committee position be subject to a term limit of 2 terms, each term to be one olympic cycle.

[*]That the system of registered shoots be abolished and replaced with;
A list of Recognised Shoots whose scores can be used for the purposes of maintaining national averages, rankings and classifications; and
Supported Shoots, one per discipline per NTSA club, where the NTSA pays for all operational costs of the competition from targets to prizes to advertising and the club keeps all entry fees.

[*]That the NTSA institute formal review meetings following all National Championships, International Matches in which the NTSA send Irish shooters to compete, and all Supported Shoots, for the purpose of determining if procedures can be improved upon and to determine if any systemic problems exist which inhibit the shooters' performances. Minutes of these meetings to be made available to all NTSA members via the website.

[*]That the NTSA produce an official event report template for every shooter and team official to complete following all events.

[*]That a maximum wind velocity be set for outdoor matches beyond which scores will not be counted for national ranking purposes.

[*]That the NTSA immediately regularise its position with respect to the International Shooting Sports Federation, the Olympic Council of Ireland and the World Anti-Doping Agency regulations by appointing an Anti-Doping Officer.

[*]That the NTSA discipline coordinators convene subcommittees comprising representatives from each club which shoots their discipline; said representatives to be active shooters at at least club level in that discipline.

[*]That the NTSA create a network of club PROs who are in contact with one another and the national PRO.

[*]That the NTSA schedule seperate 10m Airgun and 50m Rifle National Championships at the end of their respective seasons from next year onwards.

[*]That from next year's AGM, nominees for committee posts must be submitted to the committee prior to the AGM notice being sent to NTSA members; that a deadline for this be made publicly known and listed in the official calendar; and that such candidates be permitted to submit a brief written note (of up to 200 words) regarding why they feel they are the best choice for the post; and that the list of nominees and their submissions be circulated as part of the AGM notice to the NTSA members.

[*]That the NTSA committee explain why it failed to publicly state its goals for the 2005-2006 year and how they planned to achieve these goals.

[*]That the NTSA committee, at its first post-AGM meeting, publicly state its goals for the coming year and how they plan to achieve these goals.

[*]That the NTSA publish the documented procedure by which the selection committee selects the National Team for an event from the shortlist of qualified shooters, including a list of what metrics are used; what the threshold values are in those metrics; what non-shooting criteria are used for selection and what appeals process is available to the athlete.

[*]That the NTSA publish the predictive budget which was used as the basis for the decision to increase the NTSA membership dues; and the list of new services the NTSA intended to use this increase in funding to provide for its members.

[*]That the NTSA publish all information submitted by the NRPAI on the NTSA's behalf to Dail Eireann, Seanad Eireann, their various Committees or the Department of Justice in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004.

[*]That the NTSA cease its consistent slighting of 10m Airgun disciplines.

[*]That the NTSA report on the projects planned to make use of the 22% rise in the NTSA's core funding grant issued this year by the Department of Sport.

[*]That the NTSA publish their grant application form for core funding as submitted to the NRPAI.

[*]That the NTSA publish a report on the 2005 NRPAI AGM, detailing what decisions were made at the AGM, paying particular attention to the following: Individual membership of the NRPAI; The voting and procedural irregularities which invalidated the 2004 NRPAI AGM.

[*]That the NTSA report in detail on its efforts to organise a team for the International University Shooting Championship 2006 (September 4-9, 2006), with particular regard to:
the efforts of the Collegiate Officer;
the communications between the NTSA and the CUSAI; and the timeline for these efforts.

[*]That the NTSA explain why neither notice of nor details about the AGM were posted on the official NTSA website.
[/list]

phantom_lord

Jaysus, that seems like a full afternoons work is ahead of the attendees.

civdef

Is is just me or does that organisation look pretty disfunctional?

Sparks

It's not so much dysfunctional civ, as it is that the current incumbents aren't doing any work. And people's patience has run out. Seriously. 72 motions? The only thing more ridiculous than that is that they have to be put on the agenda. All that stuff should have been handled in the day-to-day running of the NTSA, but wasn't. So now we lose even more time and energy trying to fix stuff that other people volunteered to do and then just didn't bother with, because if we don't, our shooters don't get the opportunities to compete abroad that they deserve.

les45

I assume each motion will be debated!

Sparks

I think we would all assume that les!

rrpc

les45 wrote:

I assume each motion will be debated

At 10 minutes a motion, that's 12 hours

les45

I feel sorry for the gentleman that has to take the minutes !

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

At 10 minutes a motion, that's 12 hours

Yup.
Like I said, it's ridiculous that it has to come to this. It's not like we didn't try other methods, you know.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

8. That the consumption of alcohol and other prohibited substances be banned at Director's Meetings of the NTSA.

What prohibited substances????

And the last time I checked alcohol was not a prohibited substance (unless you're under age that is).

Sparks

The second clause there is because it'd make less sense if it was absent RRPC. Knocking back a few pints before and during the meetings has happened; it shouldn't. These things aren't a social occasion.

rrpc

The second clause makes a nonsense of the first one. "other prohibited substances" implies that alcohol is a prohibited substance. In fact it doesn't just imply it, it states it as a fact.







Which it isn't obviously.

rrpc

You are also implying that some members of the current committee are drinking during meetings, which as I have pointed out above, is not prohibited, but at the same time is a pretty nasty slur.

I hope (for your sake) you can back it up.

Sparks

Valid point rrpc. We'll amend the wording in the AGM from "or other prohibited substances" to "or other, prohibited, substances".

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

You are also implying that some members of the current committee are drinking during meetings, which as I have pointed out above, is not prohibited, but at the same time is a pretty nasty slur.
I hope (for your sake) you can back it up.

Actually, I'm stating that in the past members of the committee have drank immediately before and during the meetings. Openly. While sitting across a table from me. One of those members has since left the committee. Others have not.

Look, I'm not a teetotaler and I enjoy a pint as well - but those meetings are meant to be for work, and I never felt that they were an appropriate place to be drinking in. Afterwards, fine, have a few and a good chat, that's a postive thing and could be bloody useful for the organisation - we both know how important informal networking is - but not during, for pete's sake...

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

members of the committee have drank immediately before and during the meetings. Openly. While sitting across a table from me.

Ah well, there's your answer then. I'd drink if I had to sit in a meeting with you too







In fact I'd be looking for the other prohibited substances as well

Sparks

Maybe rrpc. I've got no illusions about how difficult it can be to work with me when we're at cross purposes (I made the mistake of thinking the NTSA committee was enthusiastic about progressing the sport but were being stymied by a lack of manpower, which is why I agreed when asked to help in the first place, on both occasions - that's where the cross purposes came from) - but the saving grace for those poor unfortunates suffering from my acerbic and unpleasant company would be that there's no reason they had to be there. It's voluntary.

So if you don't enjoy it, why the hell would you be sitting there, purporting to run ISSF shooting in Ireland? And what I truly fail to comprehend - why would you sit there if you didn't want to work? Do people actually go forward for these roles thinking that they'll get to sit round a table in the pub for the next year yakking with their mates about the good old days and how it'd be so much better now if only we had more money and more ranges and less gardai regulations and so on and so forth?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Yup.
Like I said, it's ridiculous that it has to come to this.

So you are saying that proposing 72 motions that can never be debated fully or even partially given the limited time available, makes things less ridiculous?

Seems more like a party political broadcast to me. :eek:

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Maybe rrpc. I've got no illusions about how difficult it can be to work with me when we're at cross purposes

Really???? that's a damnable accuastion!

the NTSA committee was enthusiastic about progressing the sport but were being stymied by a lack of manpower

Isn't that still the case? Weren't a number of posts not filled at the last AGM, due to a lack of response from the members. AFAIK, there were a number of posts which were agreed to be added a propos of WTSC motions last year but that nobody volunteered to fill them.

but the saving grace for those poor unfortunates suffering from my acerbic and unpleasant company would be that there's no reason they had to be there. It's voluntary.

Isn't that exactly the problem? not enough volunteers, and therefore too much work spread around too few bodies.

So if you don't enjoy it, why the hell would you be sitting there, purporting to run ISSF shooting in Ireland? And what I truly fail to comprehend - why would you sit there if you didn't want to work?

Don't be so fupping pompous, I make a joke and you start throwing that around as a reason. And having a pint and working are not mutually exclusive, just as being at work and working are not the same thing.

Sparks

So you are saying that proposing 72 motions that can never be debated fully or even partially given the limited time available, makes things less ridiculous?

I'm saying that the fact that this is the only avenue left open by which this can be pursued is ridiculous. I'm saying that we tried other avenues, honestly and in good faith, and either nothing happened, or we got burned for it. So now we need everything done formally and officially. Which is a ridiculous place to be in, but what are we meant to do, ignore problems and hope they'll go away? Keep trying what we've been trying for four or five years now and see if something will change before our juniors get so old that they're bringing their kids to the range to train for the junior team?
RRPC, both you and I both know there are problems and if you look at it from the point of view of people trying to win medals in ISSF matches (and that's a fair viewpoint for NTSA members), we're in dire straits. For years, we've needed changes, and nothing has been done. Look at the situation we're in right now. Every shooter that ever shot in the Olympics for Ireland has walked away from the NTSA in disgust at this point. Northern Irish shooters haven't shown up to an NTSA match in significant numbers in years, in fact right now there's only one name seen even close to semi-regularly down here. The NTSA's only international shooters right now come out of WTSC, are trained by WTSC, most are equipped by WTSC, and all are supported by WTSC (WTSC paid half the costs of sending the Irish team abroad to the World Championships in Zagreb this year, for example, because the entire team came from our club). If we didn't do that, the NTSA wouldn't have a team and our shooters wouldn't get to shoot abroad. And those trips abroad aren't anything to crow about either - the things that went wrong with the logistics and team management in Zagreb this year were unbelievable. No equipment control done by the NTSA, even though for years they've known they needed to do that, and even after Declan was crucified by equipment control in Moscow because noone thought to check his gear before he went over. The NTSA doesn't even have the gear to do the testing, even though they do have a qualified judge to do the tests if they had the tools. They handled it instead by asking me to do the equipment control for the National team less than 24 hours before they got on the plane to Zagreb. That's ridiculous. And it's not like it was the only lack of notice given - those going got less than a month's notice before going to the biggest match in the ISSF calendar, equalled only by the Olympic Games. That's not on. How realisitic is it to not even give provisional, "okay, see if you can get the time off from work" notice? I mean, can you take a week off work with that little notice? I know I can't! The juniors going over didn't have that problem, I know - but they got so little notice that they couldn't get their innoculations before flying over. Which is a horrendous state of affairs. (And now the NTSA wants to say they look after the young people in it's Articles? I wonder what changed?)

And it's not like we're any better at home. The scores in the National Championships have fallen year by year since this ridiculous new format was introduced over the explicit, formal objections of several people (myself included) and clubs, but every year, despite the match being a shambles with no manpower to run it and shooters who try to compete in all the events exhausted from travel (Declan's said so in public, so has Richard and Daniel and all the others who've tried all three rifle events), it’s hailed as a success by head office. Our seniors haven’t won a medal internationally in a decade or more, and yet we don’t change anything to do with coaching or training. We have no coaches, but we turn down applications from volunteers to go to ISSF coaching courses, even when they volunteer to pay their own way, purely on personal reasons (yes, I was there for that decision). We’re great at planning - we can draft paper plans up to beat the band - but ever actually getting anything done? Forget it. That club coaches course has been at the almost-fully-planned-nearly-ready-to-go stage for how long now? And what happened to Gerry Power's club coaches course from '99? Hell, we can't even shoot on the correct targets for the rulebook - we shoot ISSF matches on NSRA targets despite there being an ISSF rule against it, and we shoot a quasi-codified set of "NTSA rules" on those targets. I mean, there's nothing wrong with shooting on the 3-card system, under NSRA rules. It's better for those training for Bisley week, for example. But to shoot on 3-card when training for an ISSF world cup, that's ridiculous. It's like training for the 100m hurdles when you're going to run the 4x400m relay race.

Look, I'm not telling you anything new RRPC, and you know it. Something's got to give.

Really???? that's a damnable accuastion!

"We" was probably the wrong pronoun to use...

Isn't that still the case?

No, not really. The problem wasn't manpower. We had a full committee in '04 and an almost-full one in '05. The problem is the committment to work - and by that I mean to work with clubs in good faith, to try new approaches when the old ones don't work, to listen and try to act like the service industry company that they actually, by definition, are - on the part of the committee both as a whole and on an individual basis.

Weren't a number of posts not filled at the last AGM, due to a lack of response from the members.

More because of two reasons:
1) People weren't told volunteers were needed, nor were volunteers sought out.
2) Those who were actively working towards fielding a serious international ISSF team had developed a very strong degree of skepticism about the NTSA because of things like the Register of Members being padded with the siblings, wives and even parents of board members. I know almost everyone I talked to in the past year has said that if they'd stack the books like that, what's the point in even trying? Better to do something outside the NTSA.

Isn't that exactly the problem? not enough volunteers, and therefore too much work spread around too few bodies.

I'm not sure that you can say that that's the problem when the NTSA itself said it didn't need more people (I can pass you on the minutes where they decided not to ask an ISSF-qualified coach to help out if you want).

Don't be so fupping pompous

I'm not being pompous, I'm being annoyed. I used to go to some fair lengths to get to those meetings, and did a fair bit of prep work beforehand because I thought it'd help; only to find I was showing up to watch a social outing of drinking buddies, who then blamed shooters and clubs for insufficient committment as a reason for our not winning medals. And I wasn't alone in this.

rrpc

The NTSA's only international shooters right now come out of WTSC, are trained by WTSC, most are equipped by WTSC, and all are supported by WTSC (WTSC paid half the costs of sending the Irish team abroad to the World Championships in Zagreb this year, for example, because the entire team came from our club). The NTSA doesn't even have the gear to do the testing, even though they do have a qualified judge to do the tests if they had the tools. They handled it instead by asking me to do the equipment control for the National team less than 24 hours before they got on the plane to Zagreb. That's ridiculous

That circle doesn't square. You're saying on the one hand that WTSC provided the squad, the equipment, and half the finances and then blame the NTSA for not organising equipment control even though you know they don't have the testing gear, which WTSC do have. In the interests of fairness and in the interests of your fellow shooters (namely Declan) would it not have behoved you to offer to do equipment control given that you had a months notice as to who was going?

rrpc

I'm saying that the fact that this is the only avenue left open by which this can be pursued is ridiculous. I'm saying that we tried other avenues, honestly and in good faith, and either nothing happened, or we got burned for it. So now we need everything done formally and officially.

That's not doing things formally and oficially. The scattergun approach you have taken is designed primarily to halt all progress and tie everyone up in dicussing nonsensical non-motions like "Is this the 2006 AGM?" or "Why is the NTSA slighting air shooters?" (that one's a bit like "when did you stop beating your wife").

All this stuff is divisive and unnecessary, right now I would have no intention of ever serving on the NTSA committee, it just wouldn't be worth it. I have had my differences (of which you well know) with past committees, but there are some with whom I have had long standing friendships, and quite honestly I don't think they deserve the kind of diatribe contined in your list of proposals.

Some of the stuff is quite insulting. Should I point out to our chairman or our chief range officer that they should no longer be members of the NTSA seeing as they don't attend registered shoots anymore? Or myself for that matter seeing as I don't have the time?

Slighting air shooters my ass

tireur

Sparks wrote:

NTSA AGM 2006
Motions for the Agenda

From the sensible club:
That all of the motions listed by Sparks on Boards.ie are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve,i.e. that the first motion debated will be to eliminate all of the aforementioned motions from further discussion.

civdef

So, when's the split then?

tireur

I thought that happened when Sparks left the NTSA committee?.

Sparks

Sorry Tireur, but this isn't just me. It's a darn sight bigger than that. Besides, what matter is it to you? Do you shoot in ISSF competitions? Do you need or get anything from the NTSA?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

That circle doesn't square.

Yes it does, unless you're suggesting I take it on myself to appoint myself as an official Irish Team equipment control judge.
Which wouldn't exactly be something that the NTSA would particularly enjoy under other circumstances, I think.
No, sorry RRPC, the NTSA does not get to play at being NGB until there's work to do. If you're the NGB and you say who goes and who doesn't, and you set the rules, then you've also got to fulfill your responsibilities to those you're setting the rules for.

rrpc wrote:

That's not doing things formally and oficially.

Yes it is. There's not one issue in there that we've not tried to deal with informally and discretely as head office would have liked, but in each case we saw either lip service followed by no action, or outright belligerence. This is the only avenue left now.

Some of the stuff is quite insulting.

You should walk a mile or two in our shoes before thinking that.

Should I point out to our chairman or our chief range officer that they should no longer be members of the NTSA seeing as they don't attend registered shoots anymore? Or myself for that matter seeing as I don't have the time?

Where on earth are you getting that one from?

Slighting air shooters my ass

On the contrary, it's a continual act by the NTSA. It's not that I think they're isolated in this - you see the "fullbore looks down on smallbore looks down on airgun" routine in just about every country that has target shooting as an established sport - but it's not necessary quite frankly, and I see no reason that we should accept it.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

From the sensible club:
That all of the motions listed by Sparks on Boards.ie are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve,i.e. that the first motion debated will be to eliminate all of the aforementioned motions from further discussion.

I may have reproduced the list here tireur, but the fact is that the list is a document submitted not by me but by the Wilkinstown club, which comprises a third of the membership and virtually all the top competitive shooters. Only 50m prone didn't see a medal go to a WTSC shooter in this year's Nationals, despite the low scores and daft format. So you tell me - if one of the largest, and the most active, and from the point of view of winning medals, the most successful club in the NTSA cannot use this avenue to bring to the table concerns that it has tried to resolve through every other informal and formal means available within the association, whence should they go?

And why would you seek to deny them this avenue?

Sparks

civdef wrote:

So, when's the split then?

Everyone resorts to that to make a joke of it, I notice, especially those that don't want the split to happen. I'd much rather wonder - why the split?

rrpc

Yes it does, unless you're suggesting I take it on myself to appoint myself as an official Irish Team equipment control judge.

There's a world of a difference between offering to do equipment control for your fellow shooters, and appointing yourself equipment control officer. As an example of this, we have offered the use of our ranges for squad training purposes. We have not appointed ourselves as squad trainers or for that matter dictated as to who should or should not take part in squad training sessions.

On the other hand, since none of the Wilkinstown subset of the Zagreb contingent apparently had trouble with equipment control, presumably you carried out equipment control for them before their departure, without offering it to the rest of the squad. What's that about?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

I may have reproduced the list here tireur, but the fact is that the list is a document submitted not by me but by the Wilkinstown club,

Sparks, it is clear to all that you are using this club as a vehicle to express your own strange views. It is also clear that , if you were not in this club, then they might still have valid views on how the NTSA should perform, but they would not be expressed in such an immature and spitefull manner. Please go through the list and highlight the points which you had no input to.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Where on earth are you getting that one from?

That the NTSA committee explain the sudden and unprecedented rise in the number of subscribed members of the NTSA immediately prior to the 2006 AGM and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members.

I presume you mean the 2005 AGM, but even if you didn't, a goodly proportion of that unprecedented increase was down to us (in both years) due to technical and adminstrative snafus.

I am reading between the lines that you believe these increases to be artificial, which in our case is not true, we have had a big increase in membership.

But it is insulting to assume that people who don't take part in NTSA competitions should have no interest or for that matter any right to take part in or vote in NTSA meetings.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

There's a world of a difference between offering to do equipment control for your fellow shooters, and appointing yourself equipment control officer.

Indeed. Here's the thing though - had they asked, we'd have helped. There was no WTSC subset, don't forget - the entire team was from WTSC. What possible reason would there be for us to refuse? But they didn't ask, not until there was about 22 hours left before they all got on a plane - not enough time to do equipment control. So why ask me to do it when I couldn't possibly get it done? And who'd be blamed if they ran into problems with equipment control in Zagreb after I'd gone through their kit with a quarter of the time you'd need to do it right? And if it would have been so hard to ask me to do it earlier, why didn't the NTSA ask to borrow the equipment to do it themselves? They have a judge on the board, and they use our target scoring machine for every air rifle match going, and we've never refused it. Why would they think that we'd refuse them equipment when we'd be the ones to benefit?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

I am reading between the lines that you believe these increases to be artificial, which in our case is not true

In rathdrum's case, rrpc, I never thought it was.
But if you can tell me a good reason as to why the vice-chairman's parents are on the register of members, you'll have done something no-one else in the sport has been able to thus far, including NTSA board members.

But it is insulting to assume that people who don't take part in NTSA competitions should have no interest or for that matter any right to take part in or vote in NTSA meetings.

First off, that's not a question you want to raise emotions over because at it's heart is a serious question as to who should say which way the company goes, who has more invested, and whether or not that investment even should constitute a greater right than simple membership.

Secondly, it's not a question being raised, except by you. But I would care to know how the NTSA can represent ISSF and NSRA shooters if every other shooter in country joined up and decided that the NTSA should exert more effort on wildfowling than on 50m prone rifle, for example.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

Sparks, it is clear to all that you are using this club as a vehicle to express your own strange views. It is also clear that , if you were not in this club, then they might still have valid views on how the NTSA should perform, but they would not be expressed in such an immature and spitefull manner.

*snort*
I'm sorry tireur, I guess you might think that that's actually possible - but only if you didn't know anyone in Wilkinstown very well.

Please go through the list and highlight the points which you had no input to.

Be glad to. At the AGM. In public and on the record. See you there.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Be glad to. At the AGM. In public and on the record. See you there.

What a cop out, surely going through the list here is on the record and in public, especially as the attendees at the AGM have better things to do than humour you.

Sparks

Not a cop out. This list here is in public, yes, but it's also anonymous, so it's not the definitive record of a public company like the NTSA (which isn't to say less of here - it's just to say that you wouldn't use a screwdriver to make a souffle). So I'll stand up in public and answer that question with people taking notes if you want. How's that a cop-out?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Not a cop out. This list here is in public, yes, but it's also anonymous, so it's not the definitive record of a public company like the NTSA (which isn't to say less of here - it's just to say that you wouldn't use a screwdriver to make a souffle). So I'll stand up in public and answer that question with people taking notes if you want. How's that a cop-out?

The NTSA isn't a public company.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

In rathdrum's case, rrpc, I never thought it was.
But if you can tell me a good reason as to why the vice-chairman's parents are on the register of members, you'll have done something no-one else in the sport has been able to thus far, including NTSA board members.

I can't because I don't know them. But it could be for many reasons not least the idea of supporting their son's sport financially.

First off, that's not a question you want to raise emotions over because at it's heart is a serious question as to who should say which way the company goes, who has more invested, and whether or not that investment even should constitute a greater right than simple membership.

And I say that founder members should still be entitled to their say, even if they no longer are physically able to take part in the sport. And I love the way you are going with this, are you implying that there are greater members and lesser members?

Secondly, it's not a question being raised, except by you. But I would care to know how the NTSA can represent ISSF and NSRA shooters if every other shooter in country joined up and decided that the NTSA should exert more effort on wildfowling than on 50m prone rifle, for example.

Well maybe I'm raising it because I can see farther than my nose. The people concerned will certainly see it as it impacts directly on them.

I hardly expect wildfowlers to join the NTSA, nor should you. That's just a rank exaggeration and does not advance your argument one whit. But I doubt that it's there to advance your argument, just to belittle mine.

rrpc

Getting back to Zagreb; Are you saying that because you didn't get a specific request directly to yourself or your club, you didn't carry out equipment control checks on your members equipment even though you had the facilities and wherewithal to do so?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

The NTSA isn't a public company.

Yes it is. Ask the CRO.

And I say that founder members should still be entitled to their say, even if they no longer are physically able to take part in the sport.

I'd agree. Of course, we do know how much value the NTSA places on it's founder members. See motion 5 in the first post.

And I love the way you are going with this, are you implying that there are greater members and lesser members?

No, I'm asking whether or not we should ask that question. And I'm doing so here. The motions do not raise that issue.

rrpc wrote:

Getting back to Zagreb; Are you saying that because you didn't get a specific request directly to yourself or your club, you didn't carry out equipment control checks on your members equipment even though you had the facilities and wherewithal to do so?

I'm saying that there was no official equipment control check carried out on the Irish Team's equipment prior to their departure for Zagreb. That's purely the responsibility of the National Governing Body, and they failed utterly to live up to it, and sent off a team comprised mostly of juniors, to the World Championships, representing Ireland, without checking to ensure that their gear met all the latest ISSF rules and regulations (some of which were less than a year old and thus had to affect their equipment), despite previous Irish teams having their equipment fail equipment control, with all the attendant stress that adds to someone already trying to prepare for a major international match. Obfuscation simply will not make that point invalid, nor incorrect.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Yes it is. Ask the CRO.

Really?, I didn't know that. What exchange is it listed on?

I'd agree. Of course, we do know how much value the NTSA places on it's founder members. See motion 5 in the first post.

I didn't know that Paddy Ashe was a founder member.

No, I'm asking whether or not we should ask that question. And I'm doing so here. The motions do not raise that issue.

The motion implies the question. Anyone with half a brain would see it.

I'm saying that there was no official equipment control check carried out on the Irish Team's equipment prior to their departure for Zagreb. That's purely the responsibility of the National Governing Body, and they failed utterly to live up to it, and sent off a team comprised mostly of juniors, to the World Championships, representing Ireland, without checking to ensure that their gear met all the latest ISSF rules and regulations (some of which were less than a year old and thus had to affect their equipment), despite previous Irish teams having their equipment fail equipment control, with all the attendant stress that adds to someone already trying to prepare for a major international match. Obfuscation simply will not make that point invalid, nor incorrect.

Funny you should use the word obfuscation, seeing as you didn't answer my question. It was quite simple, do you want me to restate it?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Really?, I didn't know that. What exchange is it listed on?

No "company limited by guarantee without a share capital" can be traded on an exchange for obvious reasons rrpc. The NTSA is a public company, because it was founded as such. No share capital, seven founding members, etc.

I didn't know that Paddy Ashe was a founder member.

He was. His name is listed in the original incorporation document and it was on the Register of Members for a decade or so, and he was active in competitions up until very shortly before his death. (If you're trying to say that because you didn't know him personally, the point is that the NTSA board *did* know of him, who he was, and that he had passed away. And they did nothing. Not even a mass card.)

The motion implies the question. Anyone with half a brain would see it.

The question is not asked by the motions, nor do the motions require that it be asked.

Funny you should use the word obfuscation, seeing as you didn't answer my question. It was quite simple, do you want me to restate it?

No, I want you to recognise that an official team is the responsibility of the NGB. And to note that had they asked at a point where I could actually get the time to do it, I would have done the official equipment control checks gladly, because these were our shooters going abroad.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

No "company limited by guarantee without a share capital" can be traded on an exchange for obvious reasons rrpc. The NTSA is a public company, because it was founded as such. No share capital, seven founding members, etc.

Sparks, if you knew what you were talking about, why did you have to ask the question on the legal discussion board?.... I'll quote it here to save people going to have a look

Sparks wrote:

on the Legal Discussion Board
Guys,
Can someone tell me whether a company limited by guarantee and incorporated under the 1963 Act is referred to as a limited company, a public limited company, or a private limited company?

And by the way, the phrase you used was "Public Company" not "Public Company Limited by guarantee" which is a completely different animal entirely. "Public Company" is used to describe PLC's which are listed on the stock exchange. What the NTSA is, is a private company (unlisted) regardless of the use of the word "Public" in the title. Your correspondent on the legal discussion board said as much himself. "A public company may be formed afresh or a private company may be converted to a public company"

The question is not asked by the motions, nor do the motions require that it be asked.

It's a single motion, and it implies that anyone who has not taken part in NTSA competitions is not entitled to be a member. If you didn't want to imply that, then you should have left out the phrase "and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members"

No, I want you to recognise that an official team is the responsibility of the NGB. And to note that had they asked at a point where I could actually get the time to do it, I would have done the official equipment control checks gladly, because these were our shooters going abroad.

I am not suggesting that it is not the responsibility of the NTSA, where did I suggest such a thing to have you banging on so much about it? I merely asked; and I'll repeat the question: "Are you saying that because you didn't get a specific request directly to yourself or your club, you didn't carry out equipment control checks on your members equipment even though you had the facilities and wherewithal to do so?"

I'll add to that, seeing as you have alluded to it: If you would have done it gladly, why did it not occur to you to do it "because these were our shooters going abroad". What's the point of having the equipment otherwise?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Sparks, if you knew what you were talking about, why did you have to ask the question on the company law terminology board?

First off, it's the Legal Discussion board. Secondly, because you seemed so sure I thought that for the sake of accuracy I'd double-check the terminology I was using to make sure I wasn't confusing the issue by using the wrong words (and it turns out I was, but not the way you thought. It's not a public limited company, it's a public guarantee company according to that response you quoted). Are you going to berate me for ensuring the correctness of my facts?

Thirdly, you're not quoting the part of the reply that's most pertinent:

a private company limited by guarantee must have a share capital.

The NTSA does not have a share capital, was founded by 7 people, and -by the way- has had over the legal limit (for a private company) of 50 members for over a decade. It is a public (guarantee) company.

"Public Company" is used to describe PLC's which are listed on the stock exchange.

Are you completely sure that that's not "Public Limited Company" that you're thinking of? Here's the full answer from the other thread, just to save you having to go look for it:

The liability of the members of a guarantee company is limited to the guarantee amount, usually a nominal sum. The guarantee company’s constitutional documents are its Memorandum and Articles of Association. It consists of members who normally elect a board of directors to conduct the affairs of the company and to whom the executives will report. It is possible to have either a public or private guarantee company. There are two key differences between public and private guarantee companies. Firstly, a public company limited by guarantee must have a minimum of 7 members with no upper limit on the number of members. In contrast, a private company limited by guarantee can have only a single member up to a maximum of 50 members. Secondly, a public company limited by guarantee is prohibited from having a share capital, while a private company limited by guarantee must have a share capital.


A private limited is a company with a share capital, a board of directors and members who hold shares in the company which may be transferred and which may carry particular rights e.g. voting rights. This is the typical basic private company that most people are familiar with. The private company limited by shares may have a maximum of 50 members.

A public limited company is one that offers its shares to the public. It must have a minimum of seven members but, unlike a private company limited by shares, it may extend its membership beyond 50. A PLC may offer its shares directly to the public or sell them through the Stock Exchange and float the company in this way.

A public company may be formed afresh or a private company may be converted to a public company where it wishes to increase its membership and/or raise additional capital. The formation of a PLC is typically a commercially motivated and expansionist move on the part of an organisation.

It's a single motion, and it implies that anyone who has not taken part in NTSA competitions is not entitled to be a member. If you didn't want to imply that, then you should have left out the phrase "and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members"

Bullcrap. The motion reads That the NTSA committee explain the sudden and unprecedented rise in the number of subscribed members of the NTSA immediately prior to the 2006 AGM and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members. It is asking for an explanation from the NTSA of the rise in membership and the subsequent lack of a rise in competition entries. Are you suggesting that all those who joined from DRC and the Army and Fassaroe were too old to physically take part in competitions or that they had no time for competition (but did have time to cast their proxy vote in the running of the company)?

I am not suggesting that it is not the responsibility of the NTSA, where did I suggest such a thing to have you banging on so much about it?

That would be where you asked if I carried out an equipment control inspection, with the obvious inference that had I done so as a club official that it would somehow count as being "as good as" the NGB inspection. It wouldn't be. Simple fact rrpc, is that the NGB had a responsibility to do this, they were told repeatedly for years that they needed to do this, we saw at least one Irish shooter get put through the mill over equipment control before Zagreb, the chairman of the NTSA himself was formally instructed in an ISSF judges course that this was something that had to be done, and despite all this, they didn't do it.

I'll add to that, seeing as you have alluded to it: If you would have done it gladly, why did it not occur to you to do it

Because the NTSA wrote to us telling us that this (the Zagreb trip) was an NGB affair and we not only played no official part in it, but were not even entitled to notification of any of the details of it. So we had no idea who was doing the equipment control (other than that the NTSA was saying it was handling the trip and they had an ISSF judge to use), or when those checks would happen. We assumed that after Moscow, we would be asked for a loan of the necessary gauges and the like, and we were going to hand them as soon as asked (as we do for every air rifle match with the scoring machine). As time ran on, we got concerned that we'd heard no such request and that we'd not heard of the checks being run from our shooters. So we asked the NTSA. We didn't get a reply until it was too late to do anything, and that reply said that they expected us to do it. Not on. Not after telling us that we had no part in it earlier.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

First off, it's the Legal Discussion board.

And you'll see that I've amended that.

Secondly, because you seemed so sure I thought that for the sake of accuracy I'd double-check the terminology I was using to make sure I wasn't confusing the issue by using the wrong words (and it turns out I was, but not the way you thought. It's not a public limited company, it's a public guarantee company according to that response you quoted). Are you going to berate me for ensuring the correctness of my facts?

I'm not going to rehash all the stuff you quoted from the other board. Suffice it to say, that you did not know the correct terminology, otherwise you would never have used the phrase "public company". Anyone who knows anything about company law, always uses that phrase to describe a Public Limited Company. In fact as I pointed out in my previous post, your correspondent used that exact same phrase in the exact same way, and I quoted it.

Thirdly, you're not quoting the part of the reply that's most pertinent: The NTSA does not have a share capital, was founded by 7 people, and -by the way- has had over the legal limit (for a private company) of 50 members for over a decade. It is a public (guarantee) company.

because it's not pertinent, you never described either the number of members nor the share capital issue, when you stated that the NTSA was a public company. And you obviously still don't understand what you were told on the Legal Discussion Board, because "a public company limited by guarantee must have a minimum of 7 members with no upper limit on the number of members."

It's tedious getting into this with you, because you really don't seem to understand what you are being told. A guarantee company (which the NTSA is) although technically a public company (because of the requirement for a minimum of 7 members) is effectively a private company as it does not offer it's shares to the public. We could also discuss other differences such as having or not having a share capital, or whether members are required to be shareholders or not. (in the NTSA's case they are not), but really we're getting completely off-topic.

This is so typical of you Sparks, I make what to my mind was a slightly pedantic but completely tongue in cheek post about your usage of Company Law terminology and you immediately march off to check whether it's true or not. You then regurgitate what you've been told by a company secretary (yes I know the man, hence my PM to him), without actually understanding it.

Are you completely sure that that's not "Public Limited Company" that you're thinking of? Here's the full answer from the other thread, just to save you having to go look for it:

FYI, the correct term is 'Guarantee Company'. It's an important distinction, because the members liability in the event of a winding up is limited to a guarantee amount specified in the M & A of A. The 'public' part of the name in the case of a Guarantee Company without share capital is very seldom used, as it causes confusion with a public limited company which as I pointed out earlier is a very different animal.

Bullcrap. The motion reads That the NTSA committee explain the sudden and unprecedented rise in the number of subscribed members of the NTSA immediately prior to the 2006 AGM and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members.

I'm still not sure which AGM you're referring to here, but assuming it's the 2006 one, as you keep quoting that date, how can you make that assumption when we haven't had a years shooting yet?. And is not the increase in membership just before tha AGM. more to do with the fact that club secretary's suddenly realise that they haven't registered yet, and do so in a rush so that their clubs have a vote at the AGM?

That would be where you asked if I carried out an equipment control inspection, with the obvious inference that had I done so as a club official that it would somehow count as being "as good as" the NGB inspection.

How could there be an NTSA inspection if they don't have the gear? so good or bad is a moot point. In any event you have the gear and you have the qualification to use it, so why sit on your hands when there is an obvious need. You still haven't told me btw whether or not you checked your members gear (officially or unofficially).

that reply said that they expected us to do it. Not on. Not after telling us that we had no part in it earlier.

That sounds very petty.
A bit like the kid with the soccer ball telling the rest of the kids they can't play unless he can pick the team.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

A guarantee company (which the NTSA is) although technically a public company (because of the requirement for a minimum of 7 members) is effectively a private company as it does not offer it's shares to the public.

Firstly, it has no shares to offer. Secondly, it is a public company. Beyond that, I think we're getting way off-topic over my misunderstanding of what you've just said was a tongue-in-cheek post (I had thought it was in earnest, hence my double-checking of the terminology).

I'm still not sure which AGM you're referring to here, but assuming it's the 2006 one, as you keep quoting that date, how can you make that assumption when we haven't had a years shooting yet?

Blat. No, that's a typo. Should read 2005. I'm annoyed we missed that. The correction's been sent to the NTSA.

And is not the increase in membership just before tha AGM. more to do with the fact that club secretary's suddenly realise that they haven't registered yet, and do so in a rush so that their clubs have a vote at the AGM?

That's a valid explanation, but we don't know if it's the NTSA's explanation. Hence the motion.

How could there be an NTSA inspection if they don't have the gear?

They use our equipment for every airgun match they run (the target scoring machine, which is worth far more than all our equipment control gauges put together by a margin of a few hundred percent). It's never been a problem, nor would it have been this time. They just didn't do it. And even if - despite the evidence to the contrary - it was so onerous to ask us to help, they have €18,000 or so sitting in the bank account waiting for use. There's no way that anyone could say it was improper for the NGB to spend a hundred or so euros of their money on equipment that would be used for the national team. But they didn't.

You still haven't told me btw whether or not you checked your members gear (officially or unofficially).

Because it's not relevant! You've said yourself, it was the NTSA's responsibility to do equipment control checks. The NTSA said it themselves to us at the time that the team was their responsibility. We specifically asked them about equipment control checks. So what bearing has your question on the specific point that the NTSA did not run the checks?

That sounds very petty.

Horse hockey. There's got to be one standard here rrpc - either you work within the NGB structure (which we were trying to do, despite misgivings) or you don't. You can't say that we're being petty if we try to work with the NGB and follow their directions. There's more to this anyway, and we'll go through it at the AGM; but I'm not seeing the point in doing it here as we're going round in circles. The fact was, the NGB told us to stay hands off, and then turned around and laid the responsibility for something pretty critical at our door with no chance to get it done right when they had ample forewarning that it was critical. And that's not on.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

*snort*

I wonder if the members and officers of Wilkinstown really appreciate what you have done in their name Sparks? By behaving in the immature way you have , in putting forward such a ridiculous list of motions, you have devalued any serious content. I much admire the Wilkinstown club and believe that they make a major contribution to ISSF shooting in Ireland. It is a serious club with dedicated members. What a pity then that you have led them astray, masquerading your hatred of the NTSA under the guise of "only doing what is good for the sport". WTSC may have some good ideas and suggestions about how to move ISSF shooting forward but as they are lost in your diatribe, they will not get discussed when all of the motions are thrown out en masse. This means that in this case, as in general, your involvement in trying to change anything results in exactly the opposite happening. If you really want to change things and you want WTSC's ideas to get a hearing, then I suggest you disassociate yourself from a much reduced and hopefully seriously meant list of proposals which are then presented by other members of WTSC. Somehow , I don't think you will be able to do this.

Sparks

Tireur, are you - who just posted yesterday an intent to sabotage a list of motions drafted, debated and approved by the entire WTSC committee - going to seriously sit there and blame me for a motion you yourself want to submit? Exactly who do you think you're fooling by blaming the X-ray for the broken bone?

If you're so worried about the baby Tireur, get your hand off the bathplug chain.