New Levy proposals

[roadrunner]

My overall impression is that attending BOF AGM's is a complete waste of time, you can't change anything, and the motions are decided primarily on proxy votes.

The proxy vote issue is a difficult one, and I'm sure that at a previous AGM or EGM they took the opposite view,and allowed an amendment at the meeting.

The only real solution is to have a good debate beforehand, so that the proposal that's finally put will be accepted by the vast majority. Alternatively, we could have a range of options proposed, so that people could vote for the one they prefer, rather than a simple yes/no choice.

I think it might have been better not to have lumped together the change in subscriptions with the change in levies, since from the discussions here I detect no great objection to the former, but a lot of concern about the latter.

[JEP]

It was clearly stated at the AGM that "Junior only" events would be s detremuned by Junior Competitions Group. "This would avoid levy avoidance issues". As I understood it District events which included Yvette Baker rounds but also had adults would not be levy free. The YBT Final which is junior only would be levy free.I think I was at the same meeting!!!

[Wayward-O]

It was clearly stated at the AGM that "Junior only" events would be determined by Junior Competitions Group. "This would avoid levy avoidance issues". <<Typo's corrected>>

So Junior Competitions Group are now to become the Levy Cops - a role that I hope that they enjoy. As with all ill-thought out rules, this one will have outcomes unforseen by the proposers. I'm sure that we'll see a number different types of Junior Only events appearing next year, together with other events shorn of the white, yellow and (possibly) orange courses. Also, I expect clubs to either not want to host the YB qualifiers or to hold them as Junior Only events.

I'm not sure how things will end up as regions and clubs work through the ramifications of this change, but do expect that in two or three years time when the full impact can be assessed, Brit-O will propose a return to a levy system more similar to this years system, due to the detrimental impact on events or the their bank balance.

[Oldman]

Well, the proposal was carried at the AGM.

...

This leads to a number of interesting possibilities:
1) ...
2) the AGM was lied to.
3) ...

I'm afraid that I found the AGM such a depressing experience that I expect number 2 to turn out to be correct - but perhaps I'm over-cynical.

I think IanD (or if necessary, the moderators) should withdraw such a slur.

[distracted]

The YBT Final which is junior only would be levy free.

Is it really? The last evidence I can find of that is in 2003, and even then an "extra green" course was put on. Every year since the final has also been linked to a district event...

I think BOF have shot themselves in the foot with this one. Hopefully with a bit more transparency from the board of directors, the general membership will have a better idea of what's going on and why certain decisions are being/have been made.

[awk]

Like IanD, I found the AGM a thoroughly depressing occasion. It became patently obvious very early on that it didn't matter two hoots what was said or felt at the meeting. Proxy votes rule, which of course meant that no new proposals or amendments could be made, and pretty much all the decisions had been made already. Thus any "debate" was pretty pointless.

Sadly, of course, there was no real debate (thus the quote marks) - simply half a dozen or so comments that could be (and were) all side-stepped by the chairman and proposers. I was fairly appalled at the way virtually none of the issues raised were addressed, simply ignored. Of course, they could be: the severe limitations placed on the range of debate and the fact that the proxy votes were already in made it all a thorough waste of everybody's time. Which was a pity, because most of the concerns were not about the principles of the levy, but the detail (the devil really is there!), and a different approach by the officers and proposers could have done much to have got pretty much everybody onside, rather than alienating so many. I for one was inclined to vote in favour of the proposals until the meeting was treated so badly.

Of course that was before we got on to the the real fun: the furore over the election procedures. I would be fascinated to see what a decent lawyer would make of that one. If ever there was a brutal example of 'us and them', this was it. Talk about patronising, and that was the best interpretation that could be placed on this.

Thank goodness the actual orienteering was so good. But, having not been to an AGM for a while, this was a stark reminder why so many people want nothing to do with them.

[RJ]

...... Proxy votes rule, which of course meant that no new proposals or amendments could be made, and pretty much all the decisions had been made already. Thus any "debate" was pretty pointless.

IMO that is how it should be. Not everyone can go to the AGM, and not everyone can have their say. The debate should be elsewhere, before the AGM.... for eg,.... here on Nope.

Also, IMO, any financial proposal should be taken to the AGM and left as is. Particularly for financial proposals there should be no amendments, except for those that are proposed ahead of time and allow for a proper vote to be taken (inc. proxy voting). And so..... it would be good if the financial proposals are publicized far enough ahead so that they can be discussed and amendments proposed. Or..... you can propose something else for the 2009 AGM and have this current arrangement overturned!

With this particular proposal there were misgivings shown by quite a few people, including myself, but the proxy votes would apparently show that these misgivings were not shared by a majority of others. Therefore I accept the outcome and will have to work with the new rules.

The AGM is the opportunity for motions to be agreed or thrown out. It is right that the wider orienteering membership has a say.... through proxy voting. The AGM is not the time for debate.... yes, to ask questions of the exec and to have them recorded, but the few people that attend the meeting who have an axe to grind, may not necessarily represent anyone other than themselves!

[awk]

Fair enough RJ - I can't disagree. A system as you suggest would be very reasonable if we had that.

With this particular proposal there were misgivings shown by quite a few people, including myself, but the proxy votes would apparently show that these misgivings were not shared by a majority of others.

I'm not so sure. I know quite a number who did have misgivings, but voted in favour because everything else would have fallen as a result. I didn't agree with most of it: just the junior issue. There was too much lumping together.

Therefore I accept the outcome and will have to work with the new rules.

Agree. Ironically, given the comments from John Morris, this will be easier for larger clubs than smaller ones, particularly those who are doing any family development or development at mixed (i.e. not junior only) events.

Or..... you can propose something else for the 2009 AGM and have this current arrangement overturned!

Can but try!

[Oldman]

Like IanD, I found the AGM a thoroughly depressing occasion. It became patently obvious very early on that it didn't matter two hoots what was said or felt at the meeting. Proxy votes rule, which of course meant that no new proposals or amendments could be made, and pretty much all the decisions had been made already. Thus any "debate" was pretty pointless.

My spies tell me that about a third of the votes cast were present in the meeting, so it seems to me that the votes in the meeting were potentially very important, being 33% or so of the total votes being cast. The only other conlusion is that the voters in the meeting represented a minority of all the members who cared enough to vote. Or have I been misinformed?

[Spookster]

My spies tell me that about a third of the votes cast were present in the meeting, so it seems to me that the votes in the meeting were potentially very important, being 33% or so of the total votes being cast. The only other conlusion is that the voters in the meeting represented a minority of all the members who cared enough to vote. Or have I been misinformed?

I think there were about 100 people at the AGM, and that there were about 400 votes cast for each of the proposals (maybe less for the membership/levy proposal?), so the people at the AGM accounted for roughly 25-30% of the voting.

[IanD]

It was clearly stated at the AGM that "Junior only" events would be determined by Junior Competitions Group. "This would avoid levy avoidance issues". As I understood it District events which included Yvette Baker rounds but also had adults would not be levy free. The YBT Final which is junior only would be levy free. I think I was at the same meeting!!!

It was certainly stated that the Junior Competitions Group would determine which events would be levy-free. It was also stated categorically that "the Yvette Baker" would be one of those levy-free events. It may be that I missed the word 'Final'. However, I've checked back with the results of last year's Yvette Baker Final http://halo-orienteering.org.uk/results/20071202_normanby.php, and there were adults running at that event. Perhaps adults will be banned in future? In which case, I shall certainly not be helping should my club get to stage the event.

I disagree with the decision that motions should not be amended because this would disenfranchise proxy votes. I think the risk of this happening is one of the prices you pay for voting by proxy rather than attending in person. However, while I disagree, I can understand it.

What really annoyed me was that the total refusal of the 'top table' to engage in debate. Someone asked whether they would consider counting juniors as a quarter of an adult for levy purposes, and the 'answer' was that junior-only events would be levy-free. There may be good reasons for treating juniors and adults the same, but the motion proposers and the chair between them refused point-blank to advance them. In fact, their own proposals undermine the concept because of this idea of junior-only events being levy-free.

A very specific question was asked about how many adults, for example helpers, would be allowed at a junior-only event before it stopped being junior-only. There was no answer.

Frankly, I thought this attitude showed a contempt for those present at the AGM reminiscent of the most slippery professional politician being questioned by a hostile journalist. The actual points raised were ignored, and any response was merely a reiteration of earlier statements. I clearly wasn't the only person to feel this way, the tone from the floor got progressively louder and more aggrieved as the meeting went on.

For the record, I agree with about 95% of the membership and levy proposal. I'm quite happy with the increase in membership fees. I'm happy to see the distinction between types of events removed from the levy system. I'm happy to see big events pay proportionately more and small events proportionately less.

What I believe is wrong is the punitive levy on medium-sized events aimed primarily at juniors. Can it be right that a schools league event with 150 juniors and 50 adults should pay the same levy as a standard District event with 150 adults and 50 juniors, bearing in mind that junior entry fees are typically around 1/3rd of those for adults? Or is the intention that lower junior fees be done away with?

The point was made that clubs can cross-subsidise events. But this only works for clubs with a balance of event types. Some clubs have a really good development programme with proportionately more junior-focussed (but not junior-only) events. These will be now be penalised, unless they raise junior entry fees, or keep their numbers down.

We'll never know how many people really supported the whole motion, and how many were blackmailed into voting for it through fear of the financial mess which would result if it fell, since the chair made it plain that no alternative would be permitted.

If it could have been split into its component parts, we would now have a system which everybody could accept as being the will of the majority. Instead we have a lot of ill-feeling, and many will try to find ways round it. I have already heard mention (not from within my club) of investigating alternative insurance solutions to enable events not to be BOF-registered.

[Adventure Racer]

Would it be too cynical to suggest that the two parts of the proposal were deliberately linked, knowing that people would vote for the controversial levy part in order not to hamstring BO with no increase in membership fees to cover the decrease in income from elsewhere (which I imagine the vast majority were in favour of)? IMO proposals including two distinctly separate parts where people are likely to have different views on each part are extremely undemocratic.

ISTM the biggest issue is the way that AGM proposals are submitted and published. If proxy voting prevents amendments being made at the AGM, then there needs to be some way to propose amendments in advance that proxy voters can vote on, so that voters aren't backed into a corner like they have been here - and hence effectively disenfranchised.

I also wonder what the procedure is for calling an EGM in order to propose an updated levy system which deals with junior entries in a more sensible way (without the ridiculous need for a ruling by JCG, where the amount of levy you pay on the juniors at an event is determined by whether or not you exceed the allowed adult threshold - presumably that threshold is something JCG want to keep secret, like the John Lewis list, and for similar reasons).

[SJC]

I also wonder what the procedure is for calling an EGM in order to propose an updated levy system which deals with junior entries in a more sensible way.

I would support this idea if it is a way to get things changed. IanD summarises the problems clubs face very well, and the solution of counting juniors as a fraction of an adult would seem to address all the 'mixed' age group development events, as well as those normal events with a disproportianate number of juniors such as the Yvette Baker heats and final.

[awk]

Absolutely spot on IanD - an excellent summary of the AGM experience. It was the complete failure to engage in or encourage 'debate' (in spite of this word being constantly used by the chairman) that made the AGM such an aggravating experience. As the person who raised the possibility of treating juniors as a 'fraction', I can only concur with the analogy that you drew with politicians. An intensely frustrating experience, which brought no credit on Brit-O.

[IanD]

This leads to a number of interesting possibilities:
1) the definition of "junior only" is not what you might expect from the dictionary - so what is it then?
2) the AGM was lied to.
3) it's OK to split a single event into two, one junior, one adult, for levy purposes.

I will withdraw the suggestion that the AGM was deliberately lied to, which was made when I was tired and emotional. No not drunk, I was tired after a run followed by several hours setting up an event arena, and anyone at the AGM will understand the emotional.

I'm sure that all BOF elected officials are honest, hard-working, well-meaning people, and as upset as anyone at the way the AGM turned out.

I'm sure they put a lot of time and effort into coming up with what they thought were the best proposals. Then I think they probably sub-consciously slipped into thinking "how can we get these proposals through" rather than "how can we persuade people that these proposals are best", let alone "how can we use the ideas of the membership to come up with something even better".

Anyway, enough cod psychology! I still think the AGM, and the proxy voters, were seriously misled, presumably through ignorance, on one aspect of the levy proposals. I refer to the statements in print, and repeated at the AGM, that events like the Yvette Baker Trophy, would be exempt from the new levy. Whereas in fact, the Yvette Baker Trophy is not a junior-only event. Last year's final had, at a quick count, 151 adults running. I can only assume that those proposing the motion did not realise this, and similarly do not realise that many club's "junior leagues" likewise have adult participants too.

I think it likely that many voters, particularly those using proxies without hearing the debate, will have been misled by the Yvette Baker example into thinking that all junior-focussed events would be exempt, even if they, like the Yvette Baker, have some adult runners.

The motion provides for event organisers to apply to the Junior Competitions Group for exemption. Given that the Yvette Baker example was used to get the motion through, I think this leaves scope for Junior Competitions to accept any junior-focussed event as levy-free, even if some adults are running. I hope that they will use it.

I don't regard this as a good solution. There will much debate and acrimony concerning marginal events. In any case, why should a junior-focussed event with some adults running be totally levy-free? And surely Junior Competitions Group have better things to do with their time!

Far better to have a system which recognises that juniors pay only a fraction of the adult entry fee and treats them as only a fraction on an adult for levy purposes. Then the same rules would apply to all events, and Junior Competitions could do something useful. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I wonder whether there is scope for the BOF directors applying a change of this nature even after the AGM, on the grounds the AGM was misled and so the vote could be ignored? On the other hand, as a democrat, I don't like the precedent that this would establish.

Of course, for most clubs, this makes very little difference. If you have a standard pattern of events, you may theoretically be paying too much levy on juniors and too little on adults, but it evens out. However, some clubs put a lot of effort into junior-focused events, and have relatively few adult-dominated events. The new levy system, as it stands and with special treatment only for true junior-only events, would be grossly unfair on such clubs.