British Orienteering Governance Review
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
British Orienteering Governance Review
Is this the sound of whips being cracked? What do people think?
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
I think it would be good if someone could summarise it in under 20 words.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
SeanC wrote:I think it would be good if someone could summarise it in under 20 words.
Isn't that what Mrs H did
- MIE
- green
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
All association representatives on BOF committees and groups are to be replaced by people appointed by the board. This will ensure they do what the board tells them.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
As a current association rep on a group, I await the outcome with interest.
I'm also in the process of being made redundant in my day job and it all sounds very familiar...
I'm also in the process of being made redundant in my day job and it all sounds very familiar...
-
Homer - diehard
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:10 pm
- Location: Springfield
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
We discussed it briefly in our committee meeting this evening. We all agreed there should have been an A4 sized summary and wondered if it was deliberately large to discourage folk from reading it.
We felt that alongside the nice flow diagram of how the new structure would work there should have been one of how the existing structure worked so the differences were obvious. The current machinations of the BOF heirarchy were largely a mystery to us.
We wondered if it was a ploy to kick the SOA out of committees and give more committee places to retired south of England orienteers, but were maybe being paranoid. I wasn't sure about all the various committee places being allocated by the BOF board either.
More club consultation before decisions are made can only be a good thing and may avoid future event grading fiascos.
We weren't sure about the annual club/ association meeting though as suspected it would be held down south somewhere and were keener to have some sort of internet forum/ email group to discuss stuff on. Maybe there could be a BOF subsection of Nopesport?
We felt that alongside the nice flow diagram of how the new structure would work there should have been one of how the existing structure worked so the differences were obvious. The current machinations of the BOF heirarchy were largely a mystery to us.
We wondered if it was a ploy to kick the SOA out of committees and give more committee places to retired south of England orienteers, but were maybe being paranoid. I wasn't sure about all the various committee places being allocated by the BOF board either.
More club consultation before decisions are made can only be a good thing and may avoid future event grading fiascos.
We weren't sure about the annual club/ association meeting though as suspected it would be held down south somewhere and were keener to have some sort of internet forum/ email group to discuss stuff on. Maybe there could be a BOF subsection of Nopesport?
- frog
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
frog wrote:More club consultation before decisions are made can only be a good thing and may avoid future event grading fiascos.
Except there won't be (more club consultation before decisions are made). If anybody thinks that everything will get discussed in advance at a ONE day conference (which is only advisory), think again. The proposed structure would have made absolutely no difference to the problems with event grading. Indeed, it might well have exacerbated it, given that British Orienteering seemed keen to push it through at speed, altered it in committee, and then bodged the implementation. An advisory conference wouldn't have made any difference. For starters, for it to have been consulted, the whole process would have had to have been slowed down, and British Orienteering weren't going to do that (if they had, then more time could equally have been given for association reps to have taken the papers back to associations for discussion).
There is a massive mismatch between the stated aims and the proposals. So much so, that I can't see how the former led to the latter in any degree. Actually, I don't think they did.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3223
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
What prompted this document then? I don't know anyone on the BOF board, which maybe makes me a bit suspicious when documents like this arrive seemingly out of nowhere. At least I know the folk on the SOA committee are active orienteers who generally have Scottish orienteering's best interests at heart. It would be nice to have a similar faith in the BOF lot, but I'm not keen on the extra power the board seem to want to give themselves here.
I presume these sorts of changes would need passed at the AGM, but didn't read that in their timetable.
I presume these sorts of changes would need passed at the AGM, but didn't read that in their timetable.
- frog
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
Had a good look at this paper last weekend and have to say that Appendix 1 is spot on and highlights the mess that the decision making process is in at the moment.
If the Events and Competitions Committee are given the power to oversee, and make decisions on, all aspects of our events and competition structure then great - we will all know where we stand.
What is not at all clear from the document is what the other committee areas might be and how they will interact with the ECC (as it will no doubt end up being known as).
Finally am I alone in finding this SOA us vs them attitude somewhat tiresome? I like to think that the committee/group work that I currently do is for British Orienteering not English Orienteering. Similarly I believe that some of the very active Scottish Orienteers on committees/groups are also volunteering their time for the benefit of British Orienteering, not just SOA.
If the Events and Competitions Committee are given the power to oversee, and make decisions on, all aspects of our events and competition structure then great - we will all know where we stand.
What is not at all clear from the document is what the other committee areas might be and how they will interact with the ECC (as it will no doubt end up being known as).
Finally am I alone in finding this SOA us vs them attitude somewhat tiresome? I like to think that the committee/group work that I currently do is for British Orienteering not English Orienteering. Similarly I believe that some of the very active Scottish Orienteers on committees/groups are also volunteering their time for the benefit of British Orienteering, not just SOA.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
I didn't say it was us v them, and that the SOA was necessarily different from the other associations, although I have no experience of other associations, just that the machinations of BOF often seem remote from many orienteers. I know many of the SOA folk so have more faith in them, I presume other people view their associations similarly, although maybe the Scottish "identity" is stronger than a vague English boundary identity.
I wondered where the idea for the document had come from. I would expect the idea for a document like this to come from the AGM and the remits of the document to have been agreed with the AGM and the document to then be produced, discussed by clubs and associations and debated and voted on at the following AGM.
The "how will this be implemented" timetable on page 3 makes no mention of the BOF AGM in the timetable and just says "board to agree the preferred governance structure" and the changes are to start this July.
Why the rush? Why not get it legitimised by the AGM first?
I am a bit suspicious of the BOF board because they are behaving in a way that makes me a bit suspicious.
The BOF AGM should be the main decision making committee for things like this. None of this should start being implemented until the BOF AGM has agreed it, with postal votes counting of course.
I wondered where the idea for the document had come from. I would expect the idea for a document like this to come from the AGM and the remits of the document to have been agreed with the AGM and the document to then be produced, discussed by clubs and associations and debated and voted on at the following AGM.
The "how will this be implemented" timetable on page 3 makes no mention of the BOF AGM in the timetable and just says "board to agree the preferred governance structure" and the changes are to start this July.
Why the rush? Why not get it legitimised by the AGM first?
I am a bit suspicious of the BOF board because they are behaving in a way that makes me a bit suspicious.
The BOF AGM should be the main decision making committee for things like this. None of this should start being implemented until the BOF AGM has agreed it, with postal votes counting of course.
- frog
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
frog wrote:I wondered where the idea for the document had come from.
Largely I suspect from the 2009 group/committee conference to which all association reps were invited to contribute.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
The review appears to be trying to do things:
1) Sort out the roles, responsibilities, decision making and communication processes of the board and various committees.
2) Replace all the association representatives on the committees with board appointees.
I don't think anyone would argue with the need to do the first.
However it is hard to see why the all the committee members need to be replaced in order to achieve it. Where is the connection ? Perhaps one of the board members could explain.
1) Sort out the roles, responsibilities, decision making and communication processes of the board and various committees.
2) Replace all the association representatives on the committees with board appointees.
I don't think anyone would argue with the need to do the first.
However it is hard to see why the all the committee members need to be replaced in order to achieve it. Where is the connection ? Perhaps one of the board members could explain.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
As someone who basically cannot raise the interest to go into any depth in admin matters, one thing really seems to come through.
When I joined BOF I understood that it was in the rules that NO inactive orienteer could officiate on any BOF decision making committee - preciesly because hen you look at athletics etc you see the results of out of touch people directing the sport.
I assume that there is no such requirement any longer - indeed Mike Hamilton* is clearly not an orienteer at all. I am uneasy that many of the problems we are having stem from the fact that this is so. Sadly most active orienteers are simply not prepared to get into the politics (and the brickbats) that are so inevitable - (it is a whole lot easier to snipe from the sidelines).
* Please note that I believe Mike works extremely hard for what he believes to be his remit.
When I joined BOF I understood that it was in the rules that NO inactive orienteer could officiate on any BOF decision making committee - preciesly because hen you look at athletics etc you see the results of out of touch people directing the sport.
I assume that there is no such requirement any longer - indeed Mike Hamilton* is clearly not an orienteer at all. I am uneasy that many of the problems we are having stem from the fact that this is so. Sadly most active orienteers are simply not prepared to get into the politics (and the brickbats) that are so inevitable - (it is a whole lot easier to snipe from the sidelines).
* Please note that I believe Mike works extremely hard for what he believes to be his remit.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
In the groups that I am involved in there are almost no association-specific matters discussed. All of the work has national significance. As a result there does not seem any sense in having association reps for the sake of it. Futhermore some of the reps are very active (and do all the work) some are almost completely inactive (and do none). Other reps may not not actually have the best experience/skills for that committee/group. I can see many advantages in hand-picking the best people for the roles and am confident that the board will not just pick "retired south of England" members.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Orienteering Governance Review
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the board members (apart from Mike) voted by us at the AGM, usually with choice and disappointed candidates? Good managers look to appoint strong willed people who will cross-examine proposals and find problems before things go live, rather than bland yes men. If we don't trust the board members to do this then presumably we can vote for alternative candidates?
With an ageing and likely shrinking sport it might be that even the reduced number of committee posts might not be so easily filled so the point might be academic anyway? Just a thought.
With an ageing and likely shrinking sport it might be that even the reduced number of committee posts might not be so easily filled so the point might be academic anyway? Just a thought.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests