AGM Levy Options

[NeilC]

My club encourages juniors, we don't charge them anything to enter our events or training activities. Subsidised entries to relays, YBT, PP etc. Grants to attend BOF tours etc. What we don't do is run a schools league. Option A is significantly the best for us and our approach of targeting familes rather than individual school children.

Option A is not anti-junior just anti-school league. Arguments for and against schools leagues as the best development tool have been well aired in the past. Should those running schools leagues be taking the moral high ground here as some of these posts suggest?

[RJ]

Option A is not anti-junior just anti-school league.

School league events have zero levy, they are exempt if agreed by JCG. Most school league events will be junior only, or very few adults. The events are conducted outside the normal structure of fixtures/events. So they don't get considered as part of the various options available for levy calculation.

Regions where large numbers of juniors attend the normal event structure then Option C would appear to be appropriate. The entry fee for juniors is often less than half of the senior fee. Each junior will still incur the same costs on the event as far as map and facilities go. Treating a junior as 33% of a senior seems right. The levy paid for the three juniors would appear right!

Option C gives the right message to clubs to cater for juniors and encourage their participation. Subsidising the entry fee of juniors as a club policy will then not be additionally burdened by a high levy to take account of. As part of a family group, again, the balance would appear sensible. It is definitely the right model.

If the sport expands with loads of older people joining, then this demographic are more than capable of meeting the higher charge to cover their levy.

The previous levy system, charging £1.60(?) per senior and 25p(?) per junior, with the first £50 of levy unpaid, was entirely adequate. Why we had to change from that has me beat. Here we are reworking the same model from a new perspective. We are now deciding that the junior fee should be £1.60, 80p or 53p!!!!!

We had a perfectly simple, workable model...... why have we had to change it? The model was adjustable year to year by altering the senior levy charge and deciding the base figure for unpaid levy. It could have been altered at each AGM depending on the way the fixture structure changed in time.

Are we dealing with joined up thinking

[Spookster]

The result of the vote on Proposal 4 at the AGM was:
Option A 367 points
Option B 357 points
Option C 301 points

Option A will therefore apply for 2010.

(Proposals 1 to 3, and 5, were all carried).

[Angry Haggis]

The result of the vote on Proposal 4 at the AGM was:
Option A 367 points
Option B 357 points
Option C 301 points

Option A will therefore apply for 2010.

(Proposals 1 to 3, and 5, were all carried).

So, in effect, nearly 2/3rds of people voted to change the existing system (Option A). i.e. A majority voted against keeping the current system.

But because the "we need change" vote was split into two options (B and C), rather than the options being considered in a separate vote, the minority "keep the same" vote goes through.

This reminds me of the vote last year that tied the new levies and the new membership fees in together, so that you couldn't vote for one but not the other. Quite an effective way to get a potentially unpopular change "through" by tying it to an uncontroversial change, and this splitting of the "No" vote also looks like an effective way to ensure the system remains.

[awk]

The result of the vote on Proposal 4 at the AGM was:
Option A 367 points
Option B 357 points
Option C 301 points

Option A will therefore apply for 2010.

(Proposals 1 to 3, and 5, were all carried).

Now that's what I (don't) call a majority. Why am I not surprised?

[Spookster]

So, in effect, nearly 2/3rds of people voted to change the existing system (Option A). i.e. A majority voted against keeping the current system.

Incorrect conclusion. Remember, those are points, not votes, and you could vote for all three Options if you wanted, as long as you put them in your preferred order. I suspect the voting system used (Modified Borda Count) often gives numerically close results, as in this case. That doesn't mean the majority are against the selected option.

[Angry Haggis]

So, in effect, nearly 2/3rds of people voted to change the existing system (Option A). i.e. A majority voted against keeping the current system.

Incorrect conclusion. Remember, those are points, not votes, and you could vote for all three Options if you wanted, as long as you put them in your preferred order. I suspect the voting system used (Modified Borda Count) often gives numerically close results, as in this case. That doesn't mean the majority are against the selected option.

Ah, OK, my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.

[seabird]

I may be very thick but I could not understand how whether you voted for 1 or 3 of the options it made any real difference to how your vote was weighted.

If you only voted for one option it was given 1 point; the 2 options not voted for were given none.
If you voted for two options; the first preference was given 2 points; the second one point and the other none.
If you voted for 3 options; the points given were 3, 2 and 1. i.e. in reality no practical difference from voting for two options ( 1 point difference between each preference in order) and only a minor difference from voting for one ( 1 point difference between the preference and the two options not voted for).

We should have made a fuss at the AGM about the system and did not - possibly all a but bemused- or maybe the meeting was full adult members who had self-interest at heart.

The logic of the voting is quite clear that the clear majority of points are in favour of at least a 50% lower levy for Juniors. A single transferable vote system, or two votes; the first for the principle of reduced junior levy and the second for the proportion of the discount.

This whole matter must be revisted next year with a more transparent voting system that reflects the reality of the choices we are making.

[Spookster]

I may be very thick but I could not understand how whether you voted for 1 or 3 of the options it made any real difference to how your vote was weighted.

[...]

The logic of the voting is quite clear that the clear majority of points are in favour of at least a 50% lower levy for Juniors.

No, that's not true. The sum of the points of the losing options can't be considered a "majority" using this voting system. Example - if there are 4 options, A, B, C, D, I would give 4 points to my preferred option and 6 points (3+2+1) to my non-preferred options. I have given the "majority" of points to options other than A, but I still prefer A.

Anyway, your feedback is welcome - please make whatever proposals you'd like at the appropriate time next autumn, when I'm sure the levy issue will be debated again.

[awk]

Except that on this occasion there were 3 options, so the combined losers can, at best, score no more than the winner from a person's vote.

So were the first preference votes collated then?

I have to say, I think the voting process employed was at best nonsense. Either there should have been a straight vote on a reduction for juniors (e.g. 50%), or there should have been a preliminary vote on whether reduction was in principle agreed and then, if it was, what the proportion should have been. The way it was set up, it was inevitably going to split the 'for change' vote. Maybe that was the intention?

I feel doubly annoyed having been dissuaded from putting a proposal to the AGM (it was submitted last May) on the basis that management were going to address the issue themselves. I know better now.

[Spookster]

Except that on this occasion there were 3 options, so the combined losers can, at best, score no more than the winner from a person's vote.

So were the first preference votes collated then?

I have to say, I think the voting process employed was at best nonsense. Either there should have been a straight vote on a reduction for juniors (e.g. 50%), or there should have been a preliminary vote on whether reduction was in principle agreed and then, if it was, what the proportion should have been. The way it was set up, it was inevitably going to split the 'for change' vote. Maybe that was the intention?

Yes, the "for change" vote was split between options B and C, which probably means those people had to decide which one to award 3 points, and which one to award 2 points. That's still more than the 1 point they may have given to option A!

I feel doubly annoyed having been dissuaded from putting a proposal to the AGM (it was submitted last May) on the basis that management were going to address the issue themselves. I know better now.

I was one of the people who argued for the proposals to be put forward in the way that they were. Sorry if you think that wasn't good enough.

I voted for juniors to have a reduced levy charge. I think the reason that juniors will still be counted as seniors for levy calculation in 2010 is because that's what it seems most people preferred, not because of a failure in the voting system or the way the proposals went forward. Perhaps when clubs have had a year of paying levy according to the new model, it'll be easier to then convince members of the sense of the changing it slightly.

[awk]

I think the reason that juniors will still be counted as seniors for levy calculation in 2010 is because that's what it seems most people preferred, not because of a failure in the voting system or the way the proposals went forward.

If that was the case, and a majority of people voted for the status quo rather than for change, then I have no problem with the decision, apart from disagreeing with it!! However, yet again, the process has not lent itself to that sort of transparency, and it appears that the answer is we don't know. But we should, as that was the most important issue up for decision.

Last year's AGM was badly marred by by voting issues too. Coupled with some really bodged processes (I'm thinking primarily but not solely of the new event structure), it seems that whilst I'm sure the intentions are admirable, and I applaud all the hard work of volunteers, the thinking of how this will come over to membership is not being sufficiently thought through.

If it was just me, or even just people here, I wouldn't worry so much: forums are often the place where the dissatisfied gather. However, at club level, I hear exactly the same story, although to be honest the prevailing attitude is one of irrelevance. That shouldn't be the case, but it is. Ironically, given the apparent emphasis on communication being at the heart of it all, the glossier the communication, the more prevalent these feelings appear to be.

[EddieH]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Why do we keep beating ourselves up as though orienteering is peculiarly unfair? Every voting system has problems. Is "first past the post" with 10 candidates fair? Whatever system you use, or whatever question you devise everyone will never be satisfied.

I think this system appears to have been an effort to counter the criticisms last year, and as far as I am concerned hats off to Spookster et al for raising their heads above the parapet because if all orienteers were like me there wouldn't be any admin at all

[awk]

I think this system appears to have been an effort to counter the criticisms last year...

I'm fairly certain, this was the same voting system that was at the heart of the controversy last year.

Whatever system you use, or whatever question you devise everyone will never be satisfied.

I agree, but in this case, there is a very good chance that the majority have not been satisfied, and that is my point. I've been often enough in the minority (significant or otherwise) to accept that in those situations.

[Jon X]

I'm fairly certain, this was the same voting system that was at the heart of the controversy last year.

Yes - but last year the controversy was that it had not been publicised in advance so there had not been suitable opportunity for people to satisfy themselves that it was fair and appropriate.

This time it WAS publicised in advance that we were using the same system (don't ask me where but I do remember seeing it!) and there has of course been a whole year for anyone concerned as a result of last year's AGM to do any necessary research to satisfy themselves or raise it with BOF in advance of the meeting........