Membership Meeting - some daylight

[RJ]

Mr.H was correct in his conclusion that all participants in the sport should be BOF members. All proposals take account of that. The two tier model asks 'local' members to pay £5 extra to their current club membership for BOF insurance etc cover. The BOF proposal asks all participants to pay a £6 membership fee, which in effect is a reduction for current full members.

I believe BOF will be proposing the status quo for this coming EGM, giving 2006 fees based on the current system. Then a further 'development' conference/workshop will propose a model for the 2006 AGM at the JK(?). I believe that BOF Central and Council are all convinced of the 'simplification' route, and would prefer not to have two tiers of membership within the sport. If you agree with the two tier then Dick Towler's model is a worthwhile starting point.

The real problem within the sport is not the low income from membership; that is, from the current numbers and decreasing.... The real problem we need to address is the participation number. The base of our membership pyramid is tiny. The sport is top heavy with aging, generally very competent, orienteers. We need to expand the informal (C5 and C4) event structure several times over, to bring in thousands and thousands of new people. The current climate of people wishing to take up sport, or at least being encouraged to do so by government and media messages, should be firmly grasped by clubs.

[Guest]

It's good of Blanka and John Morris to pass on information about what BOF are planning via this forum, but isn't it rather disappointing that there's still nothing on the recent meetings to be found on the BOF website? I only found about about Nopesport recently, and I suspect that many BOF members are unaware of it.

[Guest]

The secretary of the meeting takes the Minutes in longhand or shorthand. These are transcribed to a document. This document is circulated to the chair and perhaps another two senior members of the committee in attendance. After corrections are agreed, the minutes are published. This takes many days or weeks. Formal acceptance takes place at the next meeting.

If an urgent statement is needed, the committee would agree the exact wording at that meeting to circumvent the delay.

On this occassion doubtless the upcoming EGM will be announced within the necessary timescales.

Committees have always worked this way.

Why are you disappointed ?

[RJ]

I believe the next issue of FOCUS will have details of the debate so far, and a set of proposals for the EGM....... and subsequent further(!!!!!!!!!!) debate.

[Guest]

I have a written an article which will appear in both the next edition of CompassSport and the Focus after next - though there will be a report on the workshop of 7 May and Council on 14 May in the next edition of Focus.

The CompassSport article is likely to have had my section on RDOs removed as Suse wants to cover that in more detail later - though it is an important part of the funding issue.

There will be an EGM and Conference in Birmingham on Saturday 24 September (which will be formally announced in due course). As well as sessions at the conference on, amongst other things, event standards and quality, recruiting and training event and club volunteers, and senior competitions, there will be a series of parallel sessions on the membership and funding proposals.

The intention is to take the outcomes of this conference and other inputs from the consultation to the AGM next year.

Hope that helps.

Ranald (BOF Vice-Chair)

[Guest]

Guest wrote:

Why are you disappointed?

Because the web site still says that the February proposals are "new" - it makes no reference to what's happened since. (See http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/asp/makepage.asp?PID=MEMBERS)

I agree that, formally, commitees do indeed approve minutes at the next meeting, and I'm sure that BOF will inform members of the EGM within the required timescale, but wouldn't it be helpful to put draft minutes on the web site, or at least indicate that something's happened since February? (I should add that I have in the past been secretary of my club, so I'm well aware of the procedure for taking minutes and getting them approved.)

But, having said that, thanks Ranald for letting us know what's happening.

[John Morris]

I've been browsing through recent comments about minute taking - and circulation...

It used to be the case that BOF Council minutes were taken using a tape recorder for backup - this meant that the meeting secretary could concentrate on what was actually happening. Our current practice seems (to me) a little less satisfactory.

It also helps (in BOF Council as elsewhere) if, in any discussion, the Chair (1) introduces/follows/encourages/shepherds the exchange, (2) proposes a summary (and asks for explicit approval/amendment) and (3) similarly establishes decisions made and actions agreed before moving on to the next topic. The meeting secretary can then make a note of the agreed summary, decision and action. The notes thus made can and should be circulated quickly (within 48 working hours) for approval - if they're delayed further, most participants will have moved on to other concerns. When minutes are not circulated promptly, mistakes, disagreements and confusion are likely.

Can YOU remember what happened at the AGM?

It also makes sense for the Chair to appoint a deputy to preside over any topic discussion in which (s)he wants to take part as a protagonist - it's impossible to do both jobs (umpire & protagonist) at once.

Look for some more polished thoughts on meeting management in a paper which Chris James is to submit (in draft form) to Development Committee on 7th June.

Why is this important?

Because if we can't manage our meetings, record the outcomes and communicate them accurately, we can't INFORM the membership.

And we need to inform the membership because they/we have some big - and expensive - decisions to make in the next year or so.

[Guest]

Actually, to correct my earlier comments, you can (now) find the minutes of the BOF Council meeting on the BOF web site if you search hard enough. So all that's actually missing is some indication in the "News" section that things have moved on since February.