AGB -Changes to Main Club Roles........

tzadmin

Supporter
Supporter
So my question to those who are worried about this is: what's the reluctance? I know that sounds quite challenging, but it is meant to be.
Most clubs cover these roles already, one way or another, though I’d suspect that it is often seen as an externally imposed burden rather than a central principle. Not to put too fine a point on it, most club archers just sign up to shoot; very few sign up to become CPOs.

One technical issue for some, though, is that many club constitutions were written a long time ago, and those may very well identify no separate safeguarding or welfare officer. That doesn’t stop a clup appointing someone to do the job, but they may choose to do so by placing the responsibility on an existing officer or a coopted committee member rather than add a new role to their constitution. That is particularly true for smaller clubs with even smaller committees; it may just add a new job for one of two or three really active committee members. Under those circumstances, it’s hard to be surprised if they feel it as “just more bureaucracy imposed from the centre”. The same goes for any centralised initiative to create a new role; clubs need to work out how to address it, and they’ll often do so pragmatically. We can’t assume that any new requirement will be delivered as a separate individual with just the one responsibility.
 

tzadmin

Supporter
Supporter
I occasionally work in schools and some interpretations of how they safeguard children by not allowing me to be in an empty room out of school hours on my own seems a little prescriptive.
Actually that’s safeguarding you. And, perhaps cynically, the school’s insurer.
Making sure folk aren’t alone in the workplace is obvious in labs and similar environments, but there’s an argument for making sure noone can have some accident or illness without it being noticed quickly. I also suspect there’s a liability angle; if someone tripped, fell, suffered concussion, and was left for three hours before an ambulance was called, the school could well end up on the end of a big claim for damages.
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Most clubs cover these roles already, one way or another, though I’d suspect that it is often seen as an externally imposed burden rather than a central principle. Not to put too fine a point on it, most club archers just sign up to shoot; very few sign up to become CPOs.

One technical issue for some, though, is that many club constitutions were written a long time ago, and those may very well identify no separate safeguarding or welfare officer. That doesn’t stop a clup appointing someone to do the job, but they may choose to do so by placing the responsibility on an existing officer or a coopted committee member rather than add a new role to their constitution. That is particularly true for smaller clubs with even smaller committees; it may just add a new job for one of two or three really active committee members. Under those circumstances, it’s hard to be surprised if they feel it as “just more bureaucracy imposed from the centre”. The same goes for any centralised initiative to create a new role; clubs need to work out how to address it, and they’ll often do so pragmatically. We can’t assume that any new requirement will be delivered as a separate individual with just the one responsibility.
Unfortunately constitutions need revisiting occasionally. Dumping this role on someone shows a poor understanding of this subject on behalf of such a club and it's obligations in law at this point in time. Viewing it as bureaucracy is quite shocking. Deciding it won't happen in that club is unacceptable. I'm alright Jack.
I'm sorry to say it but my feeling is that a lot of clubs are run by older males who are resistant to anything that might spoil the status quo. Maybe they aren't the best people to be running a club for all archers in the 21st century. I despair of this attitude.
 

Corax67

Well-known member
Most clubs cover these roles already, one way or another, though I’d suspect that it is often seen as an externally imposed burden rather than a central principle. Not to put too fine a point on it, most club archers just sign up to shoot; very few sign up to become CPOs.

One technical issue for some, though, is that many club constitutions were written a long time ago, and those may very well identify no separate safeguarding or welfare officer. That doesn’t stop a clup appointing someone to do the job, but they may choose to do so by placing the responsibility on an existing officer or a coopted committee member rather than add a new role to their constitution. That is particularly true for smaller clubs with even smaller committees; it may just add a new job for one of two or three really active committee members. Under those circumstances, it’s hard to be surprised if they feel it as “just more bureaucracy imposed from the centre”. The same goes for any centralised initiative to create a new role; clubs need to work out how to address it, and they’ll often do so pragmatically. We can’t assume that any new requirement will be delivered as a separate individual with just the one responsibility.
Good practice is to review the constitution of any club/society every 2 years to ensure it is up to date with changes in legislation and guidance from the governing bodies.

This is not just safeguarding but financial management, disciplinary and appeals processes, health and safety requirements, etc.

Ours hadn't been done for over 10yrs until I stepped up and we had to make swathing changes to it as we were wide open to risk.
 

Big George

Supporter
Supporter
It may not apply to many archery clubs but if they are registered charities then there are certain things they must do in terms of governance which includes safeguarding, who is ineligible for some roles etc.
 

Kerf

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Unfortunately constitutions need revisiting occasionally. Dumping this role on someone shows a poor understanding of this subject on behalf of such a club and it's obligations in law at this point in time. Viewing it as bureaucracy is quite shocking. Deciding it won't happen in that club is unacceptable. I'm alright Jack.
I'm sorry to say it but my feeling is that a lot of clubs are run by older males who are resistant to anything that might spoil the status quo. Maybe they aren't the best people to be running a club for all archers in the 21st century. I despair of this attitude.
I have great respect for your archery knowledge but I find this comment disappointingly sweeping. My club is run by “older males” bar one officer who is an “older female”. We completely re-wrote our constitution this year and opened all committee roles to volunteers. Not one female member, young or old (except the one already in place) volunteered for any of the committee positions. We may not be “the best people to be running a club for all archers in the 21st century” but we were the only ones who stepped up.
I despair of this type of sweeping generalism.
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
And my reply to you Kerf is that your committee is to be congratulated because they do not fit with my statement " older males who are resistant to anything that might spoil the status quo", they have done what is necessary and kept your club current, not just from a Safeguarding point of view.
It is hard work and takes time, and can be a thankless task running a club when people just want to turn up and shoot. But you have to admit, there are lot of dinosaurs out there by default, and that's not good for our sport.
 
Top