"... or fall back into peaceful obscurity, like the Woodland Folk. (Anyone remember them?"
Yes I do - though they are so obscure not to show up in a GOOGLE search there is a troupe that meets on Kinver Edge, Staffordshire - I bumped into them a while ago during a badge event - a sort of non-militaristic arts and crafts equivalent to the Boy Scouts and A WHOLE LOT less disturbing than the Iron Age Society who, real swords, shields and fetching little leather skirts 're-enact' imaginary skirmishes on the fort at the north end of the same hill
Yours
Don
BOF AGM
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
44 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
John Morris wrote:
OK, how about a few proposals!
No.1: All orienteers become BOF members by paying a single membership fee determined at the AGM. No local membership is available.
No.2: All orienteers join a club of their choice. The club is charged a membership fee based on its actual membership. Fee spread over a twelve month payment period.
No.3: Event levy is charged on participation and paid subsequent to the event.
No.4: All orienteers join a club of their choice. The club pays an affiliation fee to BOF based on a combination of membership numbers and participation levels at their events.
Let us find a model that meets the wishes of a majority and move forward.... soon.... rather than at the end of the next eleven year pause!
Long before the EGM we have to organise public debates on a number of topics, with Nopesport playing (I hope) a major, constructive part.
OK, how about a few proposals!
No.1: All orienteers become BOF members by paying a single membership fee determined at the AGM. No local membership is available.
No.2: All orienteers join a club of their choice. The club is charged a membership fee based on its actual membership. Fee spread over a twelve month payment period.
No.3: Event levy is charged on participation and paid subsequent to the event.
No.4: All orienteers join a club of their choice. The club pays an affiliation fee to BOF based on a combination of membership numbers and participation levels at their events.
Let us find a model that meets the wishes of a majority and move forward.... soon.... rather than at the end of the next eleven year pause!
- RJ
But isn't that the same as the current BOF proposal that everyone is getting upset about?
Yes, we need to come up with a constructive alternative that works rather than whinging....
Yes, we need to come up with a constructive alternative that works rather than whinging....
Maybe...
-
PorkyFatBoy - diehard
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:13 am
- Location: A contour-free zone
RJ wrote:OK, how about a few proposals!....
But all you are looking at here is the membership fee structure. What John and others have been discussing in previous threads is rather more fundamental than that. The real questions are: what is BOF for; what should its relationship be with the clubs, and by extension with the members; how can decisions be made effectively;...
Debating whether it should be newcomers or regular participants who get the best deal out of any new fee structure is pointless unless we get some input into what these fees going to be paying for. John has done valuable work in identifying and highlighting areas where change would appear to be desirable. Let's not ignore these important issues by bickering about membership fees.
Patrick
- Patrick
- light green
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:01 pm
- Location: Glesca toon
Anonymous wrote:"... or fall back into peaceful obscurity, like the Woodland Folk. (Anyone remember them?"
Yes I do - though they are so obscure not to show up in a GOOGLE search there is a troupe that meets on Kinver Edge, Staffordshire - I bumped into them a while ago during a badge event - a sort of non-militaristic arts and crafts equivalent to the Boy Scouts and A WHOLE LOT less disturbing than the Iron Age Society who, real swords, shields and fetching little leather skirts 're-enact' imaginary skirmishes on the fort at the north end of the same hill
Yours
Don
Pedant alert!
They are called the Woodcraft Folk and they have just lost an £85k governement grant.
http://www.woodcraft.org.uk/
Looking at their most recent magazine on their website they seem pretty active - including running outdoor centres in several useful settings such as Hamsterley Forest. Map-reading seems to be on the agenda so they are maybe a group that could be interested in local involvement in orienteering.
Sorry about the thread-drift!
- mikey
- diehard
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: here and there
mikey wrote:They are called the Woodcraft Folk and they have just lost an £85k governement grant.
...and they do orienteering events in Edinburgh using one of my park maps, which they have the right to copy freely.
...as with all these things, its a case of finding a leader in the group who is interested in doing orienteering, and making it easy to do so.
Graeme
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
RJ wrote:OK, how about a few proposals!
I think it was John who mentioned the following at the AGM, if not before. the fundamental issue behind these so-called "membership proposals" are whether they are to do with membership, or whether they are to do with funding BOF?
At the moment they seem to be concentrated on the latter, because BOF are worried about the uncertainty of grants from the sports bodies etc. But what determines whether we receive this funding - isn't it related to membership levels in some way?? Do we need to show increasing membership and/or participation?
There won't be an ideal solution. However, we can't get the best solution when we don't know the actual problem we are trying to solve in the first place. and it seems to me that this hasn't truly been established yet, and we won't make any progress until it is.
to finish - back vaguely on topic - I too was not particularly impressed by the chairman at the AGM, and was a bit disappointed to hear no-one else was running for the post. The "election by acclamation" didn't seem to get the same response as it did for Chris Bonington or John Disley anyhow...
-
distracted - addict
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:15 am
Patrick wrote:
The membership structure is still worthy of being considered as a separate issue. We want a simple, uniform system. The proposals can still provide a solution, by choosing one or more of them. However, another one to add....
No.5: BOF provides services, and clubs buy into them through their membership fee. They choose a level of service that suits their requirements, buying in only those services they need.
That's easy.... The Treasurer prepares a report for the year just gone, and a budget for the next year, with the fees being set to achieve that. If you don't like what the fees are being allocated to then vote the proposal down. We are paying the fees... so we can decide what they should be spent on, collectively that is!
But all you are looking at here is the membership fee structure. What John and others have been discussing in previous threads is rather more fundamental than that.
The membership structure is still worthy of being considered as a separate issue. We want a simple, uniform system. The proposals can still provide a solution, by choosing one or more of them. However, another one to add....
No.5: BOF provides services, and clubs buy into them through their membership fee. They choose a level of service that suits their requirements, buying in only those services they need.
....unless we get some input into what these fees going to be paying for.
That's easy.... The Treasurer prepares a report for the year just gone, and a budget for the next year, with the fees being set to achieve that. If you don't like what the fees are being allocated to then vote the proposal down. We are paying the fees... so we can decide what they should be spent on, collectively that is!
- RJ
Oh no! It's a thesaurus! Run, everybody!
RJ wrote:-
That's easy.... The Treasurer prepares a report for the year just gone, and a budget for the next year, with the fees being set to achieve that. If you don't like what the fees are being allocated to then vote the proposal down. We are paying the fees... so we can decide what they should be spent on, collectively that is!
Well, yes, but perhaps it's too easy. This year we have voted out the whole budget proposal, because 28% of us objected to ... something or other.
And we don't know what. Was it the additional RDO funding? Was it the gung-ho tone of Focus? Was it the allegedly secretive nature of BOF Central's management processes? Was it any one thing? Indeed, was it any one budgetary thing? We don't know.
And if we don't know what the problem is, we can't fix it. (1st rule of Operational Research...)
One way round this is "Hypothecation". Thinks: must get that OU tutor application in...
Hypothecation is a political theorist's word for "California-style" voting, programme by programme, budget by budget. As I seem to remember mentioning before...
Did you see my hobby-horse at Aintree yesterday? Boxing Clan Royal in at Bechers'? Sorry, where was I?
We could vote each (membership- funded) programme separately, each year. We could vote each programme every Y years, or each time it passed (or failed to arrive within a country mile of) a project milepost, or (a proper use of the Special Resolution rule) each time its direction changed significantly.
The funds so voted would be hypothecated, to be spent either on that programme or not at all.
The advantages come from demonstrated commitment - we said we'd do this, so let's get on with it, without diversion of effort or diminution of funds; the disadvantages come (in particular programmes) from the dislocation and expense caused by unplanned-for on/off decisions and (in the management process as a whole) by the Houdini-like constraints put on those poor unfortunates in the cockpit trying to fly the ing aircraft.
But we could do it, RJ. So, how, in practice, would you suggest we set up the votes on the budget?
(Isn't that a hospital pass? Yup, reckon so...)
That's easy.... The Treasurer prepares a report for the year just gone, and a budget for the next year, with the fees being set to achieve that. If you don't like what the fees are being allocated to then vote the proposal down. We are paying the fees... so we can decide what they should be spent on, collectively that is!
Well, yes, but perhaps it's too easy. This year we have voted out the whole budget proposal, because 28% of us objected to ... something or other.
And we don't know what. Was it the additional RDO funding? Was it the gung-ho tone of Focus? Was it the allegedly secretive nature of BOF Central's management processes? Was it any one thing? Indeed, was it any one budgetary thing? We don't know.
And if we don't know what the problem is, we can't fix it. (1st rule of Operational Research...)
One way round this is "Hypothecation". Thinks: must get that OU tutor application in...
Hypothecation is a political theorist's word for "California-style" voting, programme by programme, budget by budget. As I seem to remember mentioning before...
Did you see my hobby-horse at Aintree yesterday? Boxing Clan Royal in at Bechers'? Sorry, where was I?
We could vote each (membership- funded) programme separately, each year. We could vote each programme every Y years, or each time it passed (or failed to arrive within a country mile of) a project milepost, or (a proper use of the Special Resolution rule) each time its direction changed significantly.
The funds so voted would be hypothecated, to be spent either on that programme or not at all.
The advantages come from demonstrated commitment - we said we'd do this, so let's get on with it, without diversion of effort or diminution of funds; the disadvantages come (in particular programmes) from the dislocation and expense caused by unplanned-for on/off decisions and (in the management process as a whole) by the Houdini-like constraints put on those poor unfortunates in the cockpit trying to fly the ing aircraft.
But we could do it, RJ. So, how, in practice, would you suggest we set up the votes on the budget?
(Isn't that a hospital pass? Yup, reckon so...)
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
John Morris wrote:
So, how, in practice, would you suggest we set up the votes on the budget?
Firstly, to vote a proposal down only works with a majority of those voting. But.... would encourage the use of enfranchisement.
Secondly, it prevents an increase in the fees, without proper analysis. Simply refuse to increase fees except in line with RPI. Then the management HAVE to explain things better. Our misunderstandings, doubts and reservations about the current situation are because of poor PR. If the expenditure was explained more fully, in detail, then perhaps we would show more sympathy. Management MIGHT see the writing on the wall, and make specific proposals to cover the expenditures they would like to see implemented, and thereby giving us the opportunity to say yes or no.
I like my proposal No.5
No.5: BOF provides services, and clubs buy into them through their membership fee. They choose a level of service that suits their requirements, buying in only those services they need
To some extent that is what we are saying now. There would seem to be a resistance to RDO funding coming from club fees??? Personally, I value the RDOs.
I would advise all attendees at the AGM to vote no to the budget; and only make it a yes if the budget has been itemised in the detail that that member requires. Such detail could and should be published in Focus, with the analysis and options outlined.
One of the weaknesses of the BOF to Region to Club to Region to BOF chain for the consideration of ideas is its lack of immediacy. Discussing on a Forum such as Nope engages far more people, here and now If we regularly used this modern means of communication we could satisfy most peoples' doubts.
I know the various members of BOF management/central do read some of the postings on Nope. Perhaps they will learn how to engage the keyboard... soon
So, how, in practice, would you suggest we set up the votes on the budget?
Firstly, to vote a proposal down only works with a majority of those voting. But.... would encourage the use of enfranchisement.
Secondly, it prevents an increase in the fees, without proper analysis. Simply refuse to increase fees except in line with RPI. Then the management HAVE to explain things better. Our misunderstandings, doubts and reservations about the current situation are because of poor PR. If the expenditure was explained more fully, in detail, then perhaps we would show more sympathy. Management MIGHT see the writing on the wall, and make specific proposals to cover the expenditures they would like to see implemented, and thereby giving us the opportunity to say yes or no.
I like my proposal No.5
No.5: BOF provides services, and clubs buy into them through their membership fee. They choose a level of service that suits their requirements, buying in only those services they need
To some extent that is what we are saying now. There would seem to be a resistance to RDO funding coming from club fees??? Personally, I value the RDOs.
I would advise all attendees at the AGM to vote no to the budget; and only make it a yes if the budget has been itemised in the detail that that member requires. Such detail could and should be published in Focus, with the analysis and options outlined.
One of the weaknesses of the BOF to Region to Club to Region to BOF chain for the consideration of ideas is its lack of immediacy. Discussing on a Forum such as Nope engages far more people, here and now If we regularly used this modern means of communication we could satisfy most peoples' doubts.
I know the various members of BOF management/central do read some of the postings on Nope. Perhaps they will learn how to engage the keyboard... soon
- RJ
>>> No.5: BOF provides services, and clubs buy into them through their membership fee. They choose a level of service that suits their requirements, buying in only those services they need.
But how do you define what the services are ?
I can think of very few services that could be sensibly isolated as an option to subscribe to.
For example, BOF contribute to schools development.
Is this a 'service' a club can buy into, and if they don't then they aren't allowed to recruit any school children - this would be a nonsense.
Almost everything that BOF does benefits clubs in one way or another. Insurance is often quoted as an example where a club could buy it cheaper outside BOF. Yet it seems inconceivable that every club could take out individual insurance at an overall cost to the sport lower than BOF achieves.
Would anyone care to contribute a list of these 'services'.
But how do you define what the services are ?
I can think of very few services that could be sensibly isolated as an option to subscribe to.
For example, BOF contribute to schools development.
Is this a 'service' a club can buy into, and if they don't then they aren't allowed to recruit any school children - this would be a nonsense.
Almost everything that BOF does benefits clubs in one way or another. Insurance is often quoted as an example where a club could buy it cheaper outside BOF. Yet it seems inconceivable that every club could take out individual insurance at an overall cost to the sport lower than BOF achieves.
Would anyone care to contribute a list of these 'services'.
- Guest
RJ wrote:No.1: All orienteers become BOF members by paying a single membership fee determined at the AGM. No local membership is available.
An AGM mathematical quiz...
Parent and small child: "We just saw your red and white flags and wondered whats going on"
Orienteer: "Its this great adventure sport blah blah blah - and there are courses ideal for children too -the white course is about a kilometre round the paths"
Parent and small child: "Sounds great, can we give it a try?"
Orienteer: Sure, you just need to join BOF, Regional OA, Local OK and pay the entry fee, that will be (extracts calculator) X pounds.
Determine an appropriate value for X.
Graeme
Last edited by graeme on Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
I think perhaps Graeme is stating the obvious problem with forcing BOF memebership rather than actually asking the question. It's a tough one - there's the basic insurance issue which has been addresses recently with non-BOF members having to pay extra. This is standard to many sports but is not an incentive to come and take part is it?
One thing that has struck me as odd for the last 20+ years is we make things cheaper for children but not for those doing short courses. I could be 20, BOF member, own e-card and running brown - cheap rate, or 21, not BOF and no e-card i.e. beginner and running orange - lots. Why not have cheaper rates and waived BOF/e-card hire for white, yellow, orange and RED!? I know this means the rest of us effectively need to pay more then, but if it brings people in then we pay less long term don't we?
Canoe slalom has had massive decline and they insist on national membership to race above novice level, and once you're not novice any more you can't ever return there. Essentially if you're an occasional paddler you have to really decide whether to compete for the entire year, pay your dues (about £30 to BCU) , get re-ranked (can't compete without a ranking). There's small things been done to get round this e.g. more non-ranking races held alongside ranking ones but still miles away from allowing an occassional paddler to turn up and swell numbers.
One thing that has struck me as odd for the last 20+ years is we make things cheaper for children but not for those doing short courses. I could be 20, BOF member, own e-card and running brown - cheap rate, or 21, not BOF and no e-card i.e. beginner and running orange - lots. Why not have cheaper rates and waived BOF/e-card hire for white, yellow, orange and RED!? I know this means the rest of us effectively need to pay more then, but if it brings people in then we pay less long term don't we?
Canoe slalom has had massive decline and they insist on national membership to race above novice level, and once you're not novice any more you can't ever return there. Essentially if you're an occasional paddler you have to really decide whether to compete for the entire year, pay your dues (about £30 to BCU) , get re-ranked (can't compete without a ranking). There's small things been done to get round this e.g. more non-ranking races held alongside ranking ones but still miles away from allowing an occassional paddler to turn up and swell numbers.
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
At the AGM, one of the reasons given for the proposals was to give BOF a "more sustainable and predictable income flow". Which they would - we know what the fees would be cos they're based on last years figures and paid in monthly installements.
BUT, that gives the club treasurers a headache as the now have predictable expenditure, but income that only comes in when the events are held. (Might be okay for large "event a week clubs", but not otherwise). This will add another burden to the club treasurer, who may now need additional skills to address this problem.
I think that the membership and funding issues are separate and should be kept that way.
BUT, that gives the club treasurers a headache as the now have predictable expenditure, but income that only comes in when the events are held. (Might be okay for large "event a week clubs", but not otherwise). This will add another burden to the club treasurer, who may now need additional skills to address this problem.
I think that the membership and funding issues are separate and should be kept that way.
Maybe...
-
PorkyFatBoy - diehard
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:13 am
- Location: A contour-free zone
44 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 187 guests