Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012

[Mrs H]

Mrs H calculates the cost of insurance, .

Oh if only I could do sums like that Paul Frost did the calculations - I just asked the question

[Clive Coles]

Thought it might have to come down to this

AGM 2012 Update

Proposal 4, Membership & Levy, received a vote in favour of 69.5% at the AGM held on Friday 6 April. Unfortunately there was some discussion at the AGM regarding whether a majority of more than 50%, or more than 75% was required to pass the proposal.

Legal advice is being sought to clarify this situation. As soon as the advice is made available to British Orienteering it will be published along with the outcome of the vote on this proposal.

Mike Hamilton, on behalf of the Board

[AndyC]

given the feeling about this and the controversy, do we think that BOF should accept the cost and effort of a postal ballot of all members?

[Oldman]

Thought it might have to come down to this

AGM 2012 Update

Proposal 4, Membership & Levy, received a vote in favour of 69.5% at the AGM held on Friday 6 April. Unfortunately there was some discussion at the AGM regarding whether a majority of more than 50%, or more than 75% was required to pass the proposal.

Legal advice is being sought to clarify this situation. As soon as the advice is made available to British Orienteering it will be published along with the outcome of the vote on this proposal.

Mike Hamilton, on behalf of the Board

The meeting requested that the decision be checked, so this is acting on that request.

[RJ]

given the feeling about this and the controversy, do we think that BOF should accept the cost and effort of a postal ballot of all members?

AndyC..... they did. You had a voting form with the AGM papers. I think the problem has been that the proposal has not had enough of an airing, and although the idea has some attractions it means that for the future we will always pay something for every run we make as a levy payment. It will probably secure the long term financial future of British O but we will notice the increase in cost of the sport.

It remains to be seen where the control of BOF's expenditure will be exercised. Are we going to agree, year on year, for an increase in this levy amount. At what point are we going to say that the 'cloth needs to be cut'..........

[Clive Coles]

We do I think nead closure on this matter ~ if there is to be a new membership structure we need to get on and implement it.

But the Board have made a gaffe in the way they managed the AGM vote ~ they are now not sure where we stand and which ever way the legal opinion goes they will probably end up upsetting both sides of the debate.

If holding a postal ballot was a legitimate way within our articles for moving things to a conclusion I would support the suggestion of a postal ballot; Given the chance I would also vote again in favour of the Board resolution for a simple membership structure. But if it just evolves into another impass where does that get us ?

But the motion was tabled at the AGM and a vote was taken. There was a majority in favour.

If legal opinion rules in favour of this being a sufficient majority I guess we have to abide by that determination. If it is not, that in my opinion is sad but I think we should accept the consequences and move on.

[Electrocuted]

It will probably secure the long term financial future of British O but we will notice the increase in cost of the sport.

It remains to be seen where the control of BOF's expenditure will be exercised. Are we going to agree, year on year, for an increase in this levy amount. At what point are we going to say that the 'cloth needs to be cut'..........

I'm not convinced it will secure the long term financial future of British O. They admitted at the AGM that a levy of £1.30 was required to maintain the status quo and that in their calculations a £1 levy would bring about a deficit of £30,000 per annum.

I really don't understand their logic behind all runs paying the same levy. Larger events rely more on BOF than smaller, category D ones. The need of a controller for example, for level C and higher puts a higher cost on BOF as they provide the training. I really don't mind paying £2+ as a levy on an entry fee of £10 + for a large event but do resent paying it on a level D event that relies very much on volunteers who rarely if ever (in my experience) claim expenses so basically sub the event to make a very small amount for their club.

I suspect that the outcome of proposal 4 is that another general meeting will have to be convened under the amended articles in order to try and pass proposal 4. Even if the articles were changed with immediate effect, the meeting was still convened under the old articles.

I'm surprised it has taken BOF so long to amend the articles to be compliant with the Companies Act 2006. The Act was brought into place in several tranches to allow companies to adapt their articles gradually, however, the final provisions were brought into force in October 2009 - that was some time ago.

[Red Adder]

I'm entirely happy with the principle of the levy being used so that the more events you go to the more you pay. I stand with electocuted in that the flat rate levy is wrong. Its still a very simple system to have say

A+B £ 2 (still less than presently)
C £ 1.50
D £ 1.00 [ 50 + entries]
D £ 0.50 [ first 50 entries ]

(in fact at 0.50 for Cat D I bet most clubs will absorb the cost on their tiny events, BO will get their money and nobody will think they are being ripped off and any club trying to fiddle the figures is no better morally than tax avoiding multi-millionaires).

RA

[andypat]

The only thing wrong with red adders proposal is its too late!

In think its quite possible that clubs will look towards activities more than level D events going forward as an attractive way to keep members happy without the levy. This isnt actually a bad thing as others have said, since activities may be a better way of retaining and improving new members, although it may knock off BOFs calculations unless they have taken this possibility on board (and they cant say they werent warned!).

[spur]

what is actually the difference between an "activity" and a "level D event"?

are both covered by BOF insurance?

next year's vote will be for a levy on activities....

[andypat]

Not sure how rigid the BOF definition is but I guess in principle an activity is anything that isnt an event. ie its not a race that you can enter and get a result from.

Our activities vary from terrain runs to coaching through set exercises. Sometimes they are based at peoples houses and food is put on. Very sociable and good for generating enthusiasm since people tend to hang around after for food whereas at an event people tend to wander off.

[RJ]

......I'm not convinced it will secure the long term financial future of British O......

Ah but it will, Electrocuted....... because it is now entirely open ended...... they can propose to raise the levy to any figure they like. In a few years time it will be £2.50 per run, which, in their terms, and according to their logic, will still be a cheap sport for the participant. With various cutbacks by the various government sports bodies and the removal of large amounts of financial support the orienteering fraternity are going to have to stand on their own two feet. That will be achieved by an increased levy.

My second point was that we were losing the ability to question how we spend the funds rather than how we raise them. We don't have an adequate and transparent outline of the expenditure so we will struggle to decide when enough is enough and we need to decide where cuts should be made!!

[King Penguin]

My understanding is that if results are published then its an Event, no results and its an Activity.
Good point on visibility of expenditure break-down. I could not vote in favour of the accounts at the AGM as I had not seen any, other than the far-too-high-level pie charts in the glossy.

[Red Adder]

I did actually put a similar suggestion to BO in January when they were proposing the £ 1.30 levy - and got totally blanked - not even the curtesy of an acknowlegement of my mail (unless you count the bland statement in CSC that a flat levy was the only approach as ... well as BO said so).

It would have taken them 20 minutes to crunch the numbers and offer the membership a choice - and I bet they could have got a sliding scale of levies comparable with income raising capacity of the £ 1.30 levy passed quite comfortably by the membership - and also without having to waste further money on legal advise as to whether they need a 51% or 76% vote in favour !!

[Oldman]

I could not vote in favour of the accounts at the AGM as I had not seen any, other than the far-too-high-level pie charts in the glossy.

Did you not see the web site news item on 26 March?
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... counts.pdf