I have just returned from the BOF membership meeting and thought that you might like to hear the outcome.
Being a typical orienteer I drove straight past the Great Barr Hotel (been there 20+ times) and was consequently late.
I was expecting the meeting to be of little use but was very surprised.
A lot of ideas were thrown around and most poeople seemed to have come with open minds.
So what were the conclusions? There were 2 things that were agreed by all or nearly all. 1 all participating orienteers should be members of BOF (this is going to be an insurance stipulation in the near future). 2 there should be a mechanism in place to keep introductory and training events free from levies.
Many other ideas were thrown around which created a lot of discussion but no conclusion. Three varying proposals were given. One simple with a single membership fee and a single levy fee, free membership of BOF for 1 year and social members (non competing) could be club only members. The other 2 proposals were using variable BOF membership and levies and different membership cards. As you can imagine no agreement could be sorted out in the time available. Personally I thought that all proposals had some good points but non had been thought through due to the shortage of time.
So what next? The council meeting next week will be told that the conclusion of the meeting was that there had not been enough time to form a proposal and consequently the present system should be retained for a further year.
My own views from the meeting was that we should have free membership of BOF and all revenue coming from levies. Clubs could be given a rebate for the events they run (worked out on number of runners per event that they put on) The clubs could then decide how they spent this money (free runs for helpers etc). Maybe a bit too extreme for the sport at the moment.
Membership meeting
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Mr H writes:
So the present system will remain except for the proposed membership fee increase for 2006 of £5.00 on Seniors to £20.00 and £7.50 on Families to £30.00 a 33.33% increase (£1.00 reduction if paid by Direct debit), AND a 10% increase on the Levy from £1.50 for Seniors to £1.65 no idea what the Junior levy is as I can't find any info on the BOF website on how much the event levy is (just happen to know it is £1.50 for Senior).
All that glitters is gold, can't remember who sung that but it just seemed apt.
The council meeting next week will be told that the conclusion of the meeting was that there had not been enough time to form a proposal and consequently the present system should be retained for a further year.
So the present system will remain except for the proposed membership fee increase for 2006 of £5.00 on Seniors to £20.00 and £7.50 on Families to £30.00 a 33.33% increase (£1.00 reduction if paid by Direct debit), AND a 10% increase on the Levy from £1.50 for Seniors to £1.65 no idea what the Junior levy is as I can't find any info on the BOF website on how much the event levy is (just happen to know it is £1.50 for Senior).
All that glitters is gold, can't remember who sung that but it just seemed apt.
Cymru am Byth!
-
freaky_phil - orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:57 pm
- Location: home for the bewildered
There will have to be an EGM and any increase in fees or levy will have to be approved at that meting.
I forgot to mention that many people were unconvinced as to the effectiveness of RDOs and consequently the funding of them should be a seperate issue to membership. Hopefully this will be discussed at the EGM. I think that the budget for 2006 will have to be approved at EGM so we will have the opportunity to vote against increases if we want.
I am sure this outcome is better than being forced into a proposal that has not been properly thought through and is not suitable for orienteering.
I forgot to mention that many people were unconvinced as to the effectiveness of RDOs and consequently the funding of them should be a seperate issue to membership. Hopefully this will be discussed at the EGM. I think that the budget for 2006 will have to be approved at EGM so we will have the opportunity to vote against increases if we want.
I am sure this outcome is better than being forced into a proposal that has not been properly thought through and is not suitable for orienteering.
- Mr H
Event Levy - Emma Chissit?
Thanks to Mr H. for the meeting report.
And no, there's nothing on the BOF site yet - but I'm sure there will be by the end of Monday...
Phreaky Fill wrote:-
I can't find any info on the BOF website on how much the event levy is...
But you could look at the ready reckoner I sent you...
... which I must clearly update tooty sweet for the 2006 (Incarnation 4) figures!
Mr H wrote:-
Many people were unconvinced as to the effectiveness of RDOs and consequently the funding of them should be a seperate issue to membership. Hopefully this will be discussed at the EGM. I think that the budget for 2006 will have to be approved at EGM so we will have the opportunity to vote against increases if we want.
IMHO... the RDOs should definitely be seen as a separate venture, with its costs given as much prominence, and its results given as much detailed scrutiny, as those of the International programme are now. And, if any decision is to be taken at an EGM, the proposal will have to be published and discussed in time for the postal/proxy voters to make up their minds before the voting deadline. Remember, it must be a 'special' resolution (with a 75% approval threshold), and clearly, prudent orienteers will be inclined to vote against any proposal which has not been publicly discussed...
Which, with mid-summer fast approaching, leaves the RDO scheme's proposers very little time... Was the meeting told which Officer is to act as midwife to the proposal?
And no, there's nothing on the BOF site yet - but I'm sure there will be by the end of Monday...
Phreaky Fill wrote:-
I can't find any info on the BOF website on how much the event levy is...
But you could look at the ready reckoner I sent you...
... which I must clearly update tooty sweet for the 2006 (Incarnation 4) figures!
Mr H wrote:-
Many people were unconvinced as to the effectiveness of RDOs and consequently the funding of them should be a seperate issue to membership. Hopefully this will be discussed at the EGM. I think that the budget for 2006 will have to be approved at EGM so we will have the opportunity to vote against increases if we want.
IMHO... the RDOs should definitely be seen as a separate venture, with its costs given as much prominence, and its results given as much detailed scrutiny, as those of the International programme are now. And, if any decision is to be taken at an EGM, the proposal will have to be published and discussed in time for the postal/proxy voters to make up their minds before the voting deadline. Remember, it must be a 'special' resolution (with a 75% approval threshold), and clearly, prudent orienteers will be inclined to vote against any proposal which has not been publicly discussed...
Which, with mid-summer fast approaching, leaves the RDO scheme's proposers very little time... Was the meeting told which Officer is to act as midwife to the proposal?
Orienteering is Fun!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
Insurance
Mr H wrote:
Could someone explain a bit more about this, please? Surely it's for an individual competitor to decide whether to compete at their own risk, or take out insurance? (I can understand that the clubs putting on events have to be insured, but that's a separate issue.) And how would this apply to newcomers to the sport - you can hardly expect someone to join BOF before their first CATI event?
all participating orienteers should be members of BOF (this is going to be an insurance stipulation in the near future)
Could someone explain a bit more about this, please? Surely it's for an individual competitor to decide whether to compete at their own risk, or take out insurance? (I can understand that the clubs putting on events have to be insured, but that's a separate issue.) And how would this apply to newcomers to the sport - you can hardly expect someone to join BOF before their first CATI event?
- Guest
From the BOF incident report form:
for example, orienteer leaps out of forest onto bridleway next to horse & rider... rider falls off, is injured & sues runner for loss of earnings etc etc.
Audax UK (long distance cycling organistaion) solve this by having "temporary" or "day" membership for anyone that isn't a member of either Audax or one of the other cycling organisations that provide 3rd party liability cover. They charge £1 per ride for this and it works - entry forms are very clear about what this additional charge is for.
That said, by almost by definition they don't run CATI events where they try to get you onto a bike for the fist time. But if it is just a matter of keeping the insurers happy, why not offer free "temporary membership" of BOF for C5 competitors?
Or are we also trying to boost membership numbers to impress the government?
The BOF insurance policy provides public liability cover. It protects all BOF members, individuals
and clubs, in the event of a claim arising in connection with any BOF-registered event or other BOF
recognised activity.
for example, orienteer leaps out of forest onto bridleway next to horse & rider... rider falls off, is injured & sues runner for loss of earnings etc etc.
Audax UK (long distance cycling organistaion) solve this by having "temporary" or "day" membership for anyone that isn't a member of either Audax or one of the other cycling organisations that provide 3rd party liability cover. They charge £1 per ride for this and it works - entry forms are very clear about what this additional charge is for.
That said, by almost by definition they don't run CATI events where they try to get you onto a bike for the fist time. But if it is just a matter of keeping the insurers happy, why not offer free "temporary membership" of BOF for C5 competitors?
Or are we also trying to boost membership numbers to impress the government?
-
Lumpy Lycra - orange
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:25 pm
- Location: Brum
Whose Liability - or How do Lawyers get Rich?
Guest wrote:-
Surely it's for an individual competitor to decide whether to compete at their own risk, or take out insurance?
Well, yes, that's right but...
Suppose that you compete 'at your own risk' and are injured, or that your car sustains accidental damage. It's going to be easy - after the unthinkable has happened - to forget that you assumed the risk, easy to think (if you're the type who thinks every adverse outcome is 'someone's fault' - or can advantageously be made to appear so) that the event organisers MUST PAY!
It's going to be difficult for the organisers to prove that you WERE told about the risk, that you DID see the signs, that you DID agree that the liability was your own.
Remember also, that to earn a living as a solicitor or a barrister you have to be willing to accept (i) that approximately 50% of your clients do not have a reasonable case and (ii) that, in spite of that, you'll do all you can to ensure that they WIN.
If BOF cannot find insurers who will insure against non-members' claims, then Clubs do have a serious problem. Can you imagine getting legally watertight declarations and/or temporary membership forms filled in by by every non-member in an impatient entries queue at an informal colour-coded on a wet and windy day?
However, before we panic let's check that all potential insurers really are saying this. There's a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about. And individuals close to BOF Central in past years have been quite willing to use it. Not least, since you mention the topic, in allowing it to be believed - although we have documentary evidence to the contrary (UK Sport's NGB Success Criteria: Paragraph 8.2 (Category 3)) - that the Sports Councils are pushing for full BOF membership for all...
Does anyone out there have proof that insurance cover is going to be unavailable in future? Or is the FUD monster on the prowl again?
Surely it's for an individual competitor to decide whether to compete at their own risk, or take out insurance?
Well, yes, that's right but...
Suppose that you compete 'at your own risk' and are injured, or that your car sustains accidental damage. It's going to be easy - after the unthinkable has happened - to forget that you assumed the risk, easy to think (if you're the type who thinks every adverse outcome is 'someone's fault' - or can advantageously be made to appear so) that the event organisers MUST PAY!
It's going to be difficult for the organisers to prove that you WERE told about the risk, that you DID see the signs, that you DID agree that the liability was your own.
Remember also, that to earn a living as a solicitor or a barrister you have to be willing to accept (i) that approximately 50% of your clients do not have a reasonable case and (ii) that, in spite of that, you'll do all you can to ensure that they WIN.
If BOF cannot find insurers who will insure against non-members' claims, then Clubs do have a serious problem. Can you imagine getting legally watertight declarations and/or temporary membership forms filled in by by every non-member in an impatient entries queue at an informal colour-coded on a wet and windy day?
However, before we panic let's check that all potential insurers really are saying this. There's a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about. And individuals close to BOF Central in past years have been quite willing to use it. Not least, since you mention the topic, in allowing it to be believed - although we have documentary evidence to the contrary (UK Sport's NGB Success Criteria: Paragraph 8.2 (Category 3)) - that the Sports Councils are pushing for full BOF membership for all...
Does anyone out there have proof that insurance cover is going to be unavailable in future? Or is the FUD monster on the prowl again?
Orienteering is Fun!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
So let's have more Fun for more Feet in more Forests!
-
John Morris - orange
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:45 pm
- Location: Sussex
Lumpy Lycra wrote:
That's the same system that's used by gliding clubs - though of course the (perceived) risk is greater there.
John Morris wrote:
True - but there's no problem about the event being covered (as long as it's registered with BOF etc.) so the organisers have nothing to fear. The issue would seem to be someone (either a member of the public or another orienteer) claiming against a competitor - and this is covered by standard property/contents insurance, which I would guess most orienteers will have. (Mine covers compensation for death, injury or damage to property arising out of the private pursuits of me and my family (with some exclusions but these aren't relevant to orienteering).)
Audax UK (long distance cycling organistaion) solve this by having "temporary" or "day" membership for anyone that isn't a member of either Audax or one of the other cycling organisations that provide 3rd party liability cover.
That's the same system that's used by gliding clubs - though of course the (perceived) risk is greater there.
John Morris wrote:
It's going to be easy - after the unthinkable has happened - to forget that you assumed the risk, easy to think (if you're the type who thinks every adverse outcome is 'someone's fault' - or can advantageously be made to appear so) that the event organisers MUST PAY!
True - but there's no problem about the event being covered (as long as it's registered with BOF etc.) so the organisers have nothing to fear. The issue would seem to be someone (either a member of the public or another orienteer) claiming against a competitor - and this is covered by standard property/contents insurance, which I would guess most orienteers will have. (Mine covers compensation for death, injury or damage to property arising out of the private pursuits of me and my family (with some exclusions but these aren't relevant to orienteering).)
- Guest
Anonymous wrote: competitor - and this is covered by standard property/contents insurance, which I would guess most orienteers will have. (Mine covers compensation for death, injury or damage to property arising out of the private pursuits of me and my family (with some exclusions but these aren't relevant to orienteering).)
So what happens to an overseas runner at the JK or 6 days that doesn't have UK style insurance.... or UK orienteers who live abroad without the same value of UK insurance??? And if you need to be a BOF member to compete & be insured as part of the event are non-BOF people running invalidating all cover?
- gross2006
Insurance
Canoeing also has a "day membership" fee for competitive events to cover the insurance angle.
And in this over-litigation-prone age, claims can come in unusual ways. Say the thrown horse-rider (or orienteer) was about to go on holiday and they claim for cancellation due to injury from their holiday insurance. The holiday insurance company may then try to get their money back from someone. Crazy maybe, but it has happened. Your personal/home insurance may not cover you for "at risk" events, and they'll probably claim this applies to orienteering to get out of paying. BOF insurance probably only cover "members", and usually you can't be a member of something without paying to join it.
And in this over-litigation-prone age, claims can come in unusual ways. Say the thrown horse-rider (or orienteer) was about to go on holiday and they claim for cancellation due to injury from their holiday insurance. The holiday insurance company may then try to get their money back from someone. Crazy maybe, but it has happened. Your personal/home insurance may not cover you for "at risk" events, and they'll probably claim this applies to orienteering to get out of paying. BOF insurance probably only cover "members", and usually you can't be a member of something without paying to join it.
- Guest
I've had to send Mr H. back out onto the street to earn some money - but he thinks this is all good stuff and exactly why any proposals need plenty of time to be investigated and thought through - so keep thinking and posting
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
I remember bike racing and having to but a "day licence" to cover the insurance aspect. The non-member-surchage should give that protection. I seem to remember MTB-O does the same thing for £1 you get the compulsory insurance cover.
Maybe...
-
PorkyFatBoy - diehard
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:13 am
- Location: A contour-free zone
Anonymous wrote: competitor - and this is covered by standard property/contents insurance, which I would guess most orienteers will have.
As somebody said insurance companies will "pay" then try to recover the claim. There will also be the catch all clause in all insurance policies that says bascially they won't pay if the claim is covered by another policy. Always strikes me as daft that one because if you've got something covered twice (e.g. something gets stolen out of your car while on holiday) then nobody will pay? Rant.
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
gross2006 wrote:So what happens to an overseas runner at the JK or 6 days that doesn't have UK style insurance....
At our training run in the Pentlands this weekend, we found out that...
L'il Godders was insured through the Triathlon association.
Stefan Andersson was insured through the Swedish O-federation.
Godders, Mrs. Godders and I were taking our chances, but could probably have got a ride home in Stefan or Chris's rescue helicopter .
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
gross2006 wrote:
I guess the same as for a UK runner competing at the O-Ringen etc. - he/she would have to rely on their travel insurance. I notice that quite a few of these policies now specifically list orienteering as something that's covered.
I agree with all the sentiments about insurance companies trying to get out of paying, but having read and re-read my own policy, there doesn't seem to be a get-out for them there (of course, my policy might not be typical). I also had a look for the BOF policy details on their web site - the best I could find was a summary (go to http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... _faqs1.pdf) which included the following:
What about guests, spectators, or club-only members?
If they’re not BOF members, they’re not covered. But we are covered for them, i.e. we’re covered if a claim is made against us for something a non-member did. If a spectator who is not a member drops a match and starts a fire, and the landowner sues them, they’re not covered by our insurance. But if the landowner sues us for the fire, we are covered.
Incidentally, many road races also have a £1 non-member surcharge, and I've always understood that this too was to cover insurance. But whether that's to insure the competitor for claims made against him/her, or as a contribution to the insurance of the event should the competitor make a claim against the organisers, I've never been clear.
So what happens to an overseas runner at the JK or 6 days that doesn't have UK style insurance....
I guess the same as for a UK runner competing at the O-Ringen etc. - he/she would have to rely on their travel insurance. I notice that quite a few of these policies now specifically list orienteering as something that's covered.
I agree with all the sentiments about insurance companies trying to get out of paying, but having read and re-read my own policy, there doesn't seem to be a get-out for them there (of course, my policy might not be typical). I also had a look for the BOF policy details on their web site - the best I could find was a summary (go to http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... _faqs1.pdf) which included the following:
What about guests, spectators, or club-only members?
If they’re not BOF members, they’re not covered. But we are covered for them, i.e. we’re covered if a claim is made against us for something a non-member did. If a spectator who is not a member drops a match and starts a fire, and the landowner sues them, they’re not covered by our insurance. But if the landowner sues us for the fire, we are covered.
Incidentally, many road races also have a £1 non-member surcharge, and I've always understood that this too was to cover insurance. But whether that's to insure the competitor for claims made against him/her, or as a contribution to the insurance of the event should the competitor make a claim against the organisers, I've never been clear.
- Guest
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 185 guests