ISAA Membership

Panserborn

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

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

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

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

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

ruiner

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

Panserborn

Oops, my bad.

Renegade_Archer

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

Panserborn

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

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

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

Sparks

Panserborn wrote: »

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

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

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

Renegade_Archer

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

Sparks

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

ruiner

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

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

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

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

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

Sparks

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

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

Sparks

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

Panserborn

Sparks wrote: »

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

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

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

Reku

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

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

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



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

Sparks

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

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

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

Reku

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

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

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

ruiner

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

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

Sparks

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

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

Panserborn

ruiner wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Reku

Sparks wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Sparks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renegade_Archer

Trainwreck.

[edit]

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

halenger

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

Reku

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

ruiner

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

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

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

Cosine

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

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

The Irish Sports Council.

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

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

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

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

Sparks

Cosine wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sparks

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

ruiner

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

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

Renegade_Archer

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

Private Ryan

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

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

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

Renegade_Archer

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