BOf Committee and Group members gagged?

[Clive Coles]

What we now need is some leadership ~ we are where we deserved to be. So... let's stop pointing fingers and trying to play the blame game.

The BOF Board and Events committee have a job to do to implement a 4 tier system. I don't believe this needs to be a total re-evaluation of the options.

We are in danger of making a mountain out of a mole hill ~ we don't want to throw out all the positive improvements that have been introduced. The groups need to take what they have already done and map these ideas to a different structure.

For example ~ the key decision for the rules group is the definition of a set of criteria to differentiate new level 2 and new level 3 events. They could surely take old (existing) Level 2 rules and create 2 working copies. Then edit one set of rules to introduce more stringent requirements (new L2) and review the second copy to ensure they support the style of regular colour coded events we all know and love (new L 3). This shouldn't take longer than one cycle of committee meetings.

Events committee should look to the Ranking working party for a recommendation as to whether or not new level 3 events are included in the Ranking scheme ~ this is no more a Rules group matter than any other BOF committee..

All Committees and Groups need a clearly understood remit. They should not be trying to re-evaluate another groups recommendations. The curent governance structure appears to be over complicated. There seems to be overlap between understood remits which gives rise to differences of interpretation of requirements. Perhaps we just have too many groups and working parties.

[Mrs H]

It's going to be quite entertaining to see how the Rules Group play this - containing the fulcrum of the 4 tier motion. You could argue that either 1, this is the point at which the chairman and protagonists should resign having too much of a vested interest in the scheme and running the risk of being seen to create something of their own invention rather than the memberships' expectation, or 2, they got BOF into this mess and they should be the ones to do the hard work to get them out of it.

It reminds me a bit of Howards Way - So full of internal conflicts and hostile take over bids and no-one actually noticed that no-one was actually making or selling any boats

[RJ]

..... the key decision for the rules group is the definition of a set of criteria to differentiate new level 2 and new level 3 events.......

Thank you Clive Coles for a bit of sense. Might I suggest that level 3 events are left to a club or several adjacent clubs to decide which of their events are at this level, and to decide the nature of the competition, which would be to suit their own local situations.

Level 2 events should be vetted by the region, with some sort of overall quality control decided within the region. That way these events will be 'moderated' to some extent and the orienteers who will travel some distance to the events will be reassured that they are of the 'usual' standard that that region puts on. Regions might even want to grade them 1-5 stars depending on the 'quality' of the area, whether the area is new or remapped etc etc.

There is real potential here to set quality standards within a region so that the travelling competitor has the confidence, not just to enter the event, but to treat it as a rare opportunity to get top class competition. It is up to the regions to promote what they have..... whatever sort of competition is appropriate in that region.

[DJM]

Clive Coles wrote:
..... the key decision for the rules group is the definition of a set of criteria to differentiate new level 2 and new level 3 events.......

No! Let's get this right!! The job of Rules Group is eventually to draft changes to Rules, Guidelines and Appendices which are required by the restructuring. It is Events Committee, having taken evidence from all its groups (including RG) which is leading the task of defining the differences between the new Levels, and it is they who will advise the Board accordingly. The Board will then decide how to take things forward at its July meeting.

[roadrunner]

I can't help but feel that half the problem is the number of different groups/committees with overlapping remits. Whether people think three or four levels is best is clearly related (for some people at least) to which ones count for ranking points, and yet it seems that these aspects are decided by separate groups. Do we really need so many groups or could we merge some of them, thereby getting rid of the conflicts?

[frog]

Why aren't the fixtures committee involved? They are the ones who have to liase with club fixtures bods like me and make the thing work on a practical level.

[DJM]

They are! Along with all the other groups.

See "having taken evidence from all its groups" above ...

[fish]

I follow this from off to the side and am amazed at the ludicrous situation the sport is finding itself in.

Might I suggest that level 3 events are left to a club or several adjacent clubs to decide which of their events are at this level...
Level 2 events should be vetted by the region, with some sort of overall quality control decided within the region.

and...

are of the 'usual' standard that that region puts on...

This clearly suggests that some events (of similar standards) might be placed in level 3 in one region, but level 2 in another region, simply dependent on the norms of the region, and nothing to do with the quality. Thus the travelling competitor has no idea of relative quality, and they might as well all have been at one level... doh.

There is real potential here to set quality standards within a region so that the travelling competitor has the confidence, not just to enter the event, but to treat it as a rare opportunity to get top class competition.

What utter rubbish (apologies if taken personally). You've just said that what regions consider to be 'quality' can differ, so as I say above this doesnt help the travelling competitor. And having grown up in the Lake District I know that events you will define as level 3 frequently gave me top class competition. Does "rare opportunity" mean that regions will be encouraged just to have 2 or 3 events at this level? Or will some have 3, and others have 23 - I mean it's up to them... I just dont see where this is coming from?

[Mrs H]

Well it's going to be fun finding out isn't it? I can see that there might be a logic to providing a ranking weighting to Level 1 and 2 events as an attendance carrot because its hard to think of what else you could offer over and above what you could have advertised you were doing at old (current) level 2 events ( grade 2 cotroller/planner, new map, 5* terrain, 19 courses etc etc) so an artificial incentive like extra ranking points makes sense if that's what turns you on.

Is it my imagination or are certain BOF associated nopers posting far less than they used to - ie is the gagging order working?

[awk]

Hysterical!!
So now we have 4 levels, and nobody can agree what they should be; most of the suggestions completely fail to take into account the wide diversity of events that need to be included. Now RJ is even suggesting leaving the definitions to the associations - something which I find totally ironic, given that this is exactly what the three tier scheme had already enabled - as evidenced in SOA (the Scottish O-League)and YHOA (Yorkshire Superleague) for starters. If that's all you wanted, you didn't need a BOF-defined four tier scheme! Fish is right - if you're going to have a national 4-tier scheme, with a national 'stamp of approval', you've got to have something more than what you suggest.

Do keep going guys - the event review group was here 3 years ago.

The one thing that has always been clear to me is the process, which seems pretty straightforward - thanks DJM for clarifying though.

What Events Committee will have to do though is take on board the fact that the proposal** was very clear that L2 should be the best of the old-style age class regional events, high profile urban races and BOF competitions. So, Clive, L3 cannot be the equivalent of the old-style colour coded events - it'll have to encompass a lot more. It'll also need something at a higher level than the regional association to decide what satisfies these criteria, to ensure that only the 'best' of those in BOF are included.

**Later edit: DJM on another thread states that the proposal didn't include the table, so strictly speaking this is not binding. However, it was very clearly part of the information published, and the basis on which people will have voted. It was legally, maybe, not part of the proposal, but very much part of the manifesto. I don't say I agree with it - I don't - but that's the approach to policy that BOF appears to be taking. Having said that, if it gets dumped, I don't think any of the 4-tier proposers will be bothered, because most will have had a different vision anyway.

[andypat]

If orienteering were a religion we'd be having a schism.

There would be the church of the 3 tiers- now sadly in decline, and the church of the 4 Tiers. The church of the 4 tier group appears ripe for another schism into various different sects already, dependent on which one of the holy trinity of level, ranking list or quality you follow.

I'm rapidly becoming an atheist and am off to watch to World Cup!

[RJ]

....This clearly suggests that some events (of similar standards) might be placed in level 3 in one region, but level 2 in another region, simply dependent on the norms of the region, and nothing to do with the quality. Thus the travelling competitor has no idea of relative quality, and they might as well all have been at one level...

...... of similar standards ......????? This is exactly what they won't be. The NW will provide level 2 events of a standard that NW will agree are good enough to entice orienteers to travel to. Some of the level 3 events may be just as good in terms of quality of terrain, but perhaps won't be marketed in the same way. Maybe the clubs involved won't wish to cater for 600+ competitors.

Other regions may have problems creating level 2 events of the same 'standard' as NW( ). But they may very well call them Yourshire Super League events and it will be up to that region to create something that folk will travel to.... and return to for the next event in the series. The travelling orienteering fraternity will make that judgement and enter what they see as value for money/time spent/travel distance/competition experienced..... etc.

[fish]

...... of similar standards ......????? This is exactly what they won't be.

Please re-read my post.
If each region designates the level of event that is 2 or 3, then there can clearly be some events that would be placed in level 2 by one region, that would be placed in level 3 by another. Thus making it a confusing system.

How many level 2 events would you envisage the north-west hosting per year? Please put a number on it.

[RJ]

....If each region designates the level of event that is 2 or 3, then there can clearly be some events that would be placed in level 2 by one region, that would be placed in level 3 by another. Thus making it a confusing system......

No more confusing than trying to sell events within one tier. My logic is that the NW will define what the NW does, and provide a series of events at level 2 that it will stand by. If another region struggles to meet the same 'standard' then their events will be the XOA level 2 events..... It's always been so. The competitor will decide where they go.

Competitors will still attend all of these level 2 events, and depending on the nature of the event..... urban, sprint, middle, classic.... will depend the attendance! Each region should sell what they are good at, to give good competition for those who wish to travel.

NW are currently constructing a regional series of events. 6/8 events that will form a regional league. Good quality events of different type, to give a 'competitive' experience to attract orienteers from further afield.

[awk]

RJ

No more confusing than trying to sell events within one tier.

True, but no less confusing either in it's own way. (Not that I thought that having one tier was confusing). It's going to make no difference to the vast majority of people whether your new regional series is an old L2 or a new one - it's the development of the brand that you attach to the series that will matter.

What you now say you want is simply the three tier system, with four labels. That's fine by me - I've been arguing for the associations to have control over the old level 2 (now new L2 and L3) for months. If made clear from the word go, it might have saved us all a huge amount of energy and waste of time.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen and I am not sure was the intention of the proposers either (I doubt it given the table they published) - you may know more than me though. As I said previously, by asking BOF to put a national stamp on the tiers, the proposals put the whole definition of those tiers right back into BOF committee hands. If it's a BOF 'L2', and a BOF 'L3' then BOF may well insist on setting the criteria, understandably so. I have a horrible feeling that by going down the route you guys insisted on, the very thing you now appear to want, is the very thing that will be lost. Hope not.