BOf Committee and Group members gagged?

[awk]

BOF officials seem to have rearranged the deckchairs and have reignited old scores.

The various BOF committees will doubtless continue their deliberations right the way through to 1st January next year. Perhaps they will soon stop recriminations and come up with something we can all adopt this time.

I think you're being a wee bit unfair here. BOF are only "rearranging the deckchairs" because the AGM required them to do that. Left to themselves, they'd have been doing no rearranging whatsoever. Equally, I've not seen any BOF committees going through any recriminations* - they're getting on with the job they've been tasked to do - of rearranging those deckchairs! Bearing in mind, of course, that most if not all those "BOF officials" are in fact club members, and fairly heavily steeped in organising/planning/controlling/mapping etc.

*Unless you're referring to Lyn's and Neil's letter - a minor storm in a teacup which I for one have already told them I will ignore.

[Clive Coles]

Yes AWk ~ probably was being a bit unfair. Agree with your assessment of the Neil/Lyn letter. Best now to move on.

Will be interesting to see the minutes of the Events committee.

[distracted]

Will be interesting to see the minutes of the Events committee.

They won't tell you much - it's up to the board to make a decision on the criteria that define each level/the boundaries between them...

[pete.owens]

One of the great strengths of orienteering in this country is the variety: we are blessed with a fantastic range of terrain in a relatively very small space. That is now being accompanied by a vey welcome diversification in the types and styles of events that are being put on. Imposing national level descriptors for all but national events (and they're dealt with individually anyway, so are unnecessary) would be to put a ridiculous strait-jacket on all of that. To my mind, the best way of dealing with that was the three tier scheme - Graeme's excellent post showed why.

I agree - which is why I was a strong supporter of the 3 level stucture as initially envisaged by the working party (as opposed to the botched interim version). However, we do have to accept that the AGM motion has called for a 4 level structure.

There have been a lot of positive developments coming out of the introduction of the new structure, and I think that the proposers of the motion (unlike some of the early rejectionists) have recognised this and taken it on board.

A second best would be to leave the differentiation to associations to agree locally. I only hope that the way this has all come about doesn't prevent that happening.

But since one of the key supporting arguments for the motion was the confusion caused by different regions doing things differently, there really is a requirement to specify in detail what should be expected at an event at the new level.

For the BOF committees not to do this would be undermining the spirit of the new structure and be seen as attempting to retain the 3 level structure through the back door - in much the same way that they tried to undermine the 3 level structure with the interim measures 18 months ago.

And, while Graeme's points were spot on, in that everybody does have their own individual view of what factors are important to distinguish between different event levels, the AGM motion (taken together with the supporting arguments and appendix) does actually narrow the options down somewhat and paints a reasonably clear picture of what we should be aiming at. For example it explicitly rules out a return to old style C3 events and does embrace the spirit of the reforms brought about with the 3 level structure.

[Clive Coles]

Well put Pete.

I too endorced the 3 level stucture as initially envisaged by the working party ~ the Implementation group just fudged the interpretation of the new ideas into something many clubs could (and did) not accept.

But, as you correctly say, a lot of positive ideas have come from the resturucturing. We must ensure when these are mappped into a 4-tier structure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. No going back to the old ways.

[awk]

However, we do have to accept that the AGM motion has called for a 4 level structure.

I agree, as you will see from others of my posts. Just because I think something was the best option doesn't mean I think it should now go forward!

the AGM motion (taken together with the supporting arguments and appendix) does actually narrow the options down somewhat

I thought so too, and rebuffed a number of comments using the extra detail as argument. However, on another thread, DJM made it pretty clear that a lot of this extra detail was not part of the proposal, and therefore could and thus might be ignored. At least that seemed to be the implication.

[seabird]

The aching feet, product of the LAMM, have proved their worth just to see I have missed the resurrection of this old chestnut!

From what I have read it is good to see RJ joining the ultra-orthodox 3 tier sect, in all but name.

[graeme]

this extra detail was not part of the proposal, and therefore could and thus might be ignored.

So, loads of work and consultation went into to making a coherent proposal, and the board decided they'd been handed a piece of paper with a large number "3" written on it, devised something else, and botched* it. Now the board now decide the 4-tierers have handed them a piece of paper with a large number "4" written on it.

I wonder what will happen next? How about...

L1 "level 1" National events as originally envisaged.
L2 "level 2" Standard events as originally envisaged.
L3 "level 3" Informal events as originally envisaged.
L4 club activities and training which aren't really events at all.

As far as DJM is concerned, this is just as much what the AGM ordered as anything else.

* I think I'm allowed to say that, there's plenty of stuff from the board suggesting the
current "corporate view" is that it was botched.

[EddieH]

Graeme that's brilliant