BOF Membership Proposals

[SeanC]

Mrs H. It's tempting to say yes, but you've got to draw the line somewhere, and this would devalue the full BOF membership.

How about giving newcomers discounted full BOF membership in their first year (say a fiver)?

[guest]

And of course full BOF membership is only 'expensive' if there are high club and regional fees. These clubs are the ones where 'local' membership is attractive.

My club has £0 club fees, relatively low regional fees and only BOF members

NOC member

[awk]

And of course full BOF membership is only 'expensive' if there are high club and regional fees.

I'm still mystified why we have to have it at all. Join a club, pay a fee, that automatically gives you BOF membership, covers you for insurance etc. etc.
BOF charges the club a fee per head. The club can either pass that on directly in its membership, or raise the money differently.

I really can't understand why we need to have all these different grades, multi-layered membership fees etc. etc. If BOF needs a database, details are provided by the club (who can ask BOF to handle their registrations if they want).

I'm obviously missing something.

[Tatty]

In our region we have SN who's members belong to either SC or SE. How would this affect them if the event their own club puts on is in the region they are NOT affiliated to?

[Simon E]

This has all gone a bit quiet while we all talked about real orienteering for a while, but I think it's worth starting the discussion again.

Now that we have some clarification of the proposal I am slightly less worried than I was (BOF membership is not compulsory, despite what the supporting statement might lead you to believe) but I still don't see how this can be claimed to be a "simple" proposal. Every time a difficult question gets raised it gets an extra adminstrative fix, rather than a removal of the original problem.

I'd prefer an awk-type solution that had only one level, but let's assume we have to have a two-level solution for now.

Without developing a full proposal, and without having any numbers to back it up, what about the following amendments:

1) Delete the bit about newcomers to orienteering getting a free year. A blatant bribe that is difficult to define and manage in any consistent manner. Let the clubs do it if they want, but keep the BOF level out.

2) Align the BOF event discount to event level rather than event location, to avoid the postcode lottery problem. NBMs get a £X discount at all events. LBMs get a £X discount at all level 4 and 5 events.

I reckon this would make things quite a bit easier to understand and implement.

[johnloguk]

I really am with AWK and others on this, things are getting far too complicated again. Everyone puts their 2 penneth worth in, "what about this, what about that etc etc....." and then the proposals are amended to try and placate everyone. This is madness and no one does it in any other walk of life. Why is it that some of us feel that our view has to be not only listened to but also actioned? Let's just have some broad agreement, which we've always had let's be honest, then all agree to a simple proposal, stop adding bits ad infinitum.

My view? Simple BOF membership for all, you join a club, it includes BOF, most other organisations do this, new members will never know that we ever had a more barmy complicated system. But of course true to what I've already said I will accept whatever is agreed and get on with it, without constant sniping and moaning about after the fact.

[John Morris]

KISS...

Keep it simple, stupid!

I go along with recent contributors on this - we need to end up with a system that's simple to understand and simple to operate, by BOF Central, by Club Membership Secretaries and by Event Registration teams.

Standing back a little, and looking at the entirety of this very useful thread, I see an entirely predictable (and appropriate) proces, popularly known as "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" taking place.

John Woodall's and Dick Towler's essentially simple proposals have been presented; various gaps and weaknesses have been identified; various solutions and fixes have been proposed. The result has naturally been a tottering, ramshackle, agglomeration.

Now we are seeing the start of the next phase, which I would hope to see continued in the months after the AGM vote (assuming approval...). Using the comments posted in this thread, and much ancillary correspondence, Neil Cameron and team can hammer out an improved version that, while acknowledging and learning from the important questions raised, will recapture the robust simplicity that we need to see in an operational system.

Yes, it would have been good to do all this three months ago, but at least it's happening (good!), and in full view of the membership (even better!), now.

And another thing...

For those of us who advocate web-site debate as a good, if occasionally untidy, way of advancing BOF thinking, this thread has provided an excellent example. Thanks, all!

[roadrunner]

According to the original FAQs, LBMs will get a discount at some events in their region, insurance cover, and a vote at an AGM of an organisation that they probably wouldn't otherwise have joined. But the new FAQs (see the BOF web site if you haven't read them, under federation news) point out that the insurance cover they're getting is just for claims against themselves as competitors - the organiser and planner of the event, and their club, are already covered (providing the event is properly registered, of course), whoever competes. If my home insurance is anything to go by, such cover is automatically included so most people will have it anyway, so the insurance isn't worth the fuss that's been made about it - and after all, apart from some special cases like motor insurance, it should be up to the individual whether to take insurance or bear the risk themselves.

The new FAQs also make it clear that clubs can still offer "social membership" (or the like), which does not involve joining BOF. Other postings here have made it clear that clubs will charge a surcharge for non-BOF members rather than offering a discount to BOF members, and somewhat perversely it seems that the club rather than BOF gets to keep this surcharge. So, by becoming an LBM, you get insurance cover you probably didn't need, and avoid a surcharge that you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay! Doesn't sound much of a deal, does it? Why don't we stick with what we've got - two classes of membership, not three? It's simpler, it's tried and tested, and the only drawback seems to be that BOF can't claim as many members as under the proposed scheme.

Incidentally, the new FAQs also make it explicit that amendments will be proposed at the AGM. How does this affect proxy votes? It seems like a way of disenfranchising such voters, since they can't express an opinion on an amendment of which they're unaware. Can one specify that one's proxy vote is cast against ANY amendment?

[Mrs H.]

Well if you really want to keep it simple AND boost your membership numbers as well why go down this card-carrying road at all?

Why not say everyone who does a C4 and above is a BOF member by virtue of participation and charge an appropriate levy for it at the event.

Everyone pays and the more events you do the more you pay. (that's fair because the more BOF services you are using ie insurance, trained planners, mappers etc)

Beginners at C5s are covered by BOF's generic insurance and will contribute almost painlessly as they move up through the system and become more confident and clubs won't be burdened with the administration of the scheme or the financial implications' of AWK's scheme (which would probably be paid for the same way just admnistered in a messy patch work of varying levies).

Oh Road runner - I never understood that Proxy vote thing at the EGM in Sept either because things were done in the opposite order to usual which rather left the proxy votes up in the air.

[awk]

and clubs won't be burdened with the administration of the scheme or the financial implications' of AWK's scheme (which would probably be paid for the same way just administered in a messy patch work of varying levies).

What you suggest has merit Mrs H, although why it would be a messy patchwork, I'm not quite certain - simply each club paying BOF a certain amount of money each year; the scheme also has the advantage of participants being more closely aligned with clubs than your suggestion would lead to (at least, I see that as an advantage!). There might also be details of members to submit, but that is an optional extra depending on whether there really is a need to maintain a central database. With your suggestion, I would be concerned that the core costs of events would spiral even higher than they are going now, making progression through events anything but painless, although hopefully it would mean more C4/5s (rather a shortage at this time of year).

Actually, what I think is far more significant about membership/participation, is that we are now in a period of some 2 months, at the prime time of year, when the nearest "local" event to us is no closer than 50 miles away. That's not going to do anything for recruitment of participants OR members! The sport is still very much focused on what the hardcore want to satisfy them (us?) short term, not what is actually needed.

[guest]

Any feedback from AGM, particularly on membership proposals.

[Oldman]

Any feedback from AGM, particularly on membership proposals.

I understand the membership proposal was passed by about 180 votes to 20.

[AIRE Chair]

The number of votes cast does not reflect the attendance at the AGM - considering the amount of debate that has gone into this topic I thought the turn out was very disappointing - I estimate around 60 people.

[awk]

I for one wasn't able to get there - still collecting kites etc. However, didn't feel much point anyway- the result was almost certainly already decided by proxy/postal votes, so any discussion at AGM was a complete waste of time.

I've felt this for some time - going to the AGM is pointless as decisions have already effectively been taken. The AGM will get even more pointless to attend now. I understood BOF officers wanted to get more people involved - not going to happen as things currently stand.

Interesting to see how it pans out - quite a lot of informed opinion tell me that the scheme looks fine on paper, but is completely unworkable in practice. I agree. It's also unnecessarily complicated, but we're stuck with it now, so have to make the best of it.

[Godders]

I've felt this for some time - going to the AGM is pointless as decisions have already effectively been taken.

Not if you get yourself enough proxy votes. In order to get student entry fees at the junior rate I had enough proxy votes in 1996 to change every single decision at the meeting (apart from electing Gross as a councillor )