Not enough Officials!

[Gnitworp]

Will controllers of all grades be debarred from controlling another event before they have 'completed an accredited safety course'?

[EddieH]

Reading the rules for becoming a grade a controller, should the rumours that the SOA are going to ignore level B be actually true, then Scotland which tends to need more grade As than anywhere else will not be getting many or even any new ones again

Unless of course realism takes over and rules aren't adhered to too rigorously.

[Scott]

Some have said that a controller should remain reasonably active as planner, organiser and competitor, in order to hold on to his grade - but I doubt that BO could afford to insist on that?

They already do:

Maintaining Accreditation

Controllers shall have fulfilled all three roles at the event Levels stated and within the stated number of years.

Level A
Controlling: Level A, 5 years
Planning: Level B, 10 years
Organising: Level C, 10 years

Level B
Controlling: Level B, 5 years
Planning: Level C, 10 years
Organising: Level D, 10 years

Level C
Controlling: Level C, 5 years
Planning: Level C, 10 years
Organising: Level D, 10 years

At the end of each year, appointing bodies shall review the recent experience of the Controllers for whom they are responsible.

Where a Controller does not satisfy the requirements laid out above, the Controller shall be moved down one grade unless there are sufficient extenuating circumstances. Allowance shall be made for the practicality of meeting the requirements in the defined timescales, such as in cases where one of the three requirements is not met, but the other two are significantly exceeded, or where the person is actively involved in other relevant areas of the sport. Such a judgement should be made by the appointing body.

But note that at Levels B and C this is up to associations to enforce.

[awk]

I have every sympathy PeterRiches. I asked to be downgraded from the old Level 2 to Level 3 some years ago simply because of the organising requirement. I have no intention of upgrading whilst it remains.

[SeanC]

Apart from the recent safety course (see other threads), are the rules for becoming a controller different to 10 or 20 years ago? If not then the apparent shortage of controllers must be due other reasons (as well or instead of). Unless it was always like this?

[70plus]

Scott - 'they already do' : well, yes, in a loose kind of way. So loose that one must only perform every 5 or 10 years - hardly a tough commitment, and it says nothing about competing regularly at the appropriate level, which I carefully mentioned earlier.

Obligations like these were proposed several years ago, but quietly shelved to avoid reducing the already sparse list of volunteers. I guess the same pragmatism must apply this time round.

[awk]

Apart from the recent safety course (see other threads), are the rules for becoming a controller different to 10 or 20 years ago? If not then the apparent shortage of controllers must be due other reasons (as well or instead of). Unless it was always like this?

I can't quote chapter and verse, but my impression is that there has been a steadily increasing problem getting Grade 2/B controllers for events, especially from outside the club.

What I do know is that some 7-8 years ago or so, I did a check on Level 1 controllers, to find that only 2-3 were below M/W50, and that most were within 5 years of retirement or older. As suggested on this thread, staying as a controller is relatively straightforward, becoming one is the tedious bit. Thus it could be that after the last round of changes, those who were already qualified largely stayed on, but recruitment dropped -with the long term effect that we are now seeing. I'm guestimating, but wouldn't be at all surprised if that was on the target, even if not a bulls-eye, and that it doesn't have to have been for any other reason.

[SJC]

Apart from the recent safety course (see other threads), are the rules for becoming a controller different to 10 or 20 years ago? If not then the apparent shortage of controllers must be due other reasons (as well or instead of). Unless it was always like this?

These requirements certainly date back as far as the early 1980s, so either people were willing to do the organising then and aren't now, or there must be some other reasons.

[EddieH]

When I was appointed grade 1 the organisational requirements were explicitly waived as I said I would never fulfil them.

Ironically in recent years I have organised a few times as no-one else would.

[graeme]

If not then the apparent shortage of controllers must be due other reasons Unless it was always like this?

Twas ever thus.
A set fraction of people, on leaving M21, decide that controlling and planning is as much fun as racing at reduced speed. That fraction hasn't changed, it's just that we've destroyed the numbers leaving M21. The shortage of controllers is a consequence. For a while it didn't matter, as the 35-45 cohort of controllers aged to 55-65. But now the older group aren't (um, how to put this) physically as able to cover the necessary ground on the morning, they aren't being replaced: assistant controllers are a good solution, except that they double the number of volunteers required.

Graeme (Scotland's youngest grade 2 controller, 1991-2006)

[Clive Coles]

Got it in one Graeme ~ we rely on a reducing number of key officials who are the wrong side of 65.

Finding Organisers is still for us the greatest problem. The modern pace of family life has probably affected the number of folk volunteering for such a responsibility.

As a result the growth area in our club has become the increasing number of level D events. They are far less fuss and can be run with fewer volunteers. And they are local.

By so doing we are maintaining and even increasing participation ~ we are not however giving planners the confidence and experience to become grade 3 or grade 2 controllers.

[Scott]

Perhaps we should consider paying controllers? Back when I was a local-level football referee there was a permanent referee shortage in my association, but when they raised the match fee from £10 to £25 (plus travel) there were suddenly a lot more people wanting to do the job.

Obviously controlling has greater time demands etc, but I'm sure some reasonably fair way of paying controllers a non-trivial amount could be found (£1 per competitor?). If you structured it so that the "bigger" events were more lucrative you may even find people competing for the job (which could push standards up).

Of course, you can make similar arguments for paying the other event officials - although in my experience it is actually pretty difficult to get appointed as a planner because everybody wants to do it .

(When I have suggested this on here in the past, I was told that there is no shortage of controllers.)

[EddieH]

Pay controllers, then it will be organisers (who are more deserving in my eyes simply because I enjoy the former and hate the latter).

Controlling is the easiest of the 3 main roles even though planning is more creative and thus stimulating.

[SeanC]

It might be a useful exercise with those with the knowledge and data to look at these trends and model how many controllers are likely to be available in the future, then see if/when the crunch point comes when the current number of big (level C and above) events cannot in any way be supported by the controllers available.

Paying controllers? Personally I wouldn't object, but given what Graeme says I can't see that it changes the long term problem and would only give a short term boost in the same way as reducing some of the barriers (which would be free). Perhaps it would be better to pay (more) people to help recruit and retain some M/W21's-40's (coaches, development officers, regional publicity officers.. that sort of thing).

[Gnitworp]

Maybe abolishing the 'no controller from same club' rule would ease shortage problems.