End of controllers

[graeme]

Role of Controllers & training of Controllers
The paper circulated was discussed in detail and the following points agreed;
- The roles that need addressing for an event are:

The Organiser who has overall responsibility for the event; delivering an event that meets the technical standards required and that risks and safety are managed; the organiser will ensure the Planner has consider the technical standards of the courses and the risk management and safety on the courses.
o The Planner who has responsibility for planning the courses to the appropriate technical standards and managing any risks or safety aspects of the courses
o The Controller will normally act as mentor to the Organiser and Planner, challenging decisions when appropriate and advising on relevant aspects of the event; the Controller does not have responsibility for the event but does have the responsibility to ensure informed decisions are being taken and of advising when other courses of action could be taken.

This seems a big turnaround. Currently Organisers have nothing to do with technical standards and typically don't go into the forest. The plan seems to be to marginalise the controller, and transfer responsibility to the organiser.

...but the controller is the one who has the training and done all the formal qualifications.

In my club, finding organisers is normally the hardest part, I'm not convinced giving them more work is the way to go...

Controller : The person who has ultimate responsibility for the fairness and correctness of an event.

[Gross]

I saw that and thought it was such a load of b*****s that it wasn't worth commenting on:)

If it is indeed as it's written then controllers are worthless as the technically unaware organiser who has had no real orienteering experience beyond a CATI will be in overall technical control of some events.....

GB orienteering gets even more PC

I might think of hanging my hat up.... except I know the organiser at the next event I'm controlling has enough to do... and could control the event anyway if needed

[EddieH]

Is it really meant as I read it. If so bang go our chances of getting people to organise our events, and it is lack of officials that means that we don't puton more events.

In reality I see the O world simply ignoring it and carrying on as before.

Presumably this isn't a rule (yet)

[madmike]

What are we trying to do to the sport?

Controlling is not a role that can be dumbed down - if planners or organisers need mentoring then it's a damn site easier to find mentors than organisers, in my experience.

Having organised a level 1 event this year I got lots of invaluable help (mentoring) from experienced members of my club. Could I have been defacto controller at that level as well? no! Would I have agreed to organise at that level under this provision? Definitely no! And it's worth noting that I was the only person in a pretty large club prepared to organise the event - we asked lots of people before I agreed to do it as choice of last resort.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[epocian]

If this comes off does the organiser on the day check the controls are in the correct place?

[madmike]

if he/she's ultimately resonsible for technical standards he/she will have to!

not as though the organiser will be busy on the day is it

[Gross]

if he/she's ultimately resonsible for technical standards he/she will have to!

not entirely true

[greywolf]

If this comes off does the organiser on the day check the controls are in the correct place?

It appears Events Committee don't think that's worth bothering with....

[madmike]

if he/she's ultimately resonsible for technical standards he/she will have to!

not entirely true

a separate debate methinks

[Clive Coles]

I just dispare of BOF and the Events Committee ~ what is the point of us trying to encourage level 3 controllers to become level 2 's ( so that we can stage more regional events) if they are no longer to oversee the technical quality of the planning.

We appear to be deskilling the very role where officials have, up until now, required formalised training.

Poor old Organiser ~ they end up being responsible for everything !

Perhaps we do need to recruit an Events Manager after all to sort out the self inflicted confusions.

In the mean time this will be another of the BOF ideas that clubs will ignore ~ let common sense prevail

[Gross]

All part of the same debate if the organisers is technically qualified He / She can be responsible for the controls being in the correct place & the courses being technically sound without actually checking them physically.

But the majority of organisers seem to be bog standard club orienteers who have the organisational ability to put an event on but not the technical ability to control the technical standard (obviously lots of exceptions:) ).

Works the other way to... I might be a grade 1 controller & an IOF Elite Advisor but I have zero interest, inclination or ability to organise a modern competition with all the bureaucracy that goes with it!

[madmike]

But the majority of organisers seem to be bog standard club orienteers who have the organisational ability to put an event on but not the technical ability to control the technical standard (obviously lots of exceptions:) ).

agree completely - I know lots of excellent organisers who fall in that category but also loads of exceptions that prove the rule.

It is difficult to get realative newcomers to the sport to volunteer to organise - this will turn difficult into impossible

also have to confess to not visiting all the control sites on the day at the last event I controlled earlier this year

[NeilC]

Hopefully this is just an attempt to find some appropriate wording.

I would like to think that the organising entity (usually a club) does take some responsibility for the technical correctness of the courses. Woudn't sound great if a club claims that a poor set of courses at their event was nothing to do with them - just blame the planner. A good club will appoint their better planners to the more important events and may have mentoring schemes in place as well.

As far as BOF are concerned the organiser is the representative of the club/region etc and thus this for this minute you could substitute "organising club" for "organiser". I suggest that the organiser's responsibility for the courses goes no further than appointing an appropriate planner and taking whatever action is neccessary should that planner not prove to be up to the job.

[AndyC]

Just to add to the mix I know of (and I am sure there are more) some capable organisers who are not physically able to go into the forest to check controls. They can keep in touch with the sport they love and return something by organising. If they have to be physically involved we will lose them.

[Spookster]

Hopefully this is just an attempt to find some appropriate wording.

[...]

I suggest that the organiser's responsibility for the courses goes no further than appointing an appropriate planner and taking whatever action is neccessary should that planner not prove to be up to the job.

I agree.

This looks to me like a misunderstanding (and perhaps confused wording) of what is intended, because I don't believe any big change in roles and responsibilities of officials is planned. As far as I am aware (having recently been on a Grade 2 controllers course):

Organiser = person in charge of the event, accountable for safety and seeing that the event meets all relevant standards. That doesn't mean they do everything - it means they check that things get done. So they don't have to go in the forest.

Planner = person in charge of the courses and other technical aspects, and seeing that these meet technical standards. Reports to the Organiser.

Controller = person who provides expert guidance and mentoring to Organiser and Planner as required, tells them if their event is not meeting appropriate standards, suggests ways of resolving issues. Is not accountable for the event.