Is it all going wrong ?

[Clive Coles]

Much of what BOF have been up to over the last 3 years has taken a lot of effort behind the scenes which at the end of the day is unlikely to effect what clubs actually do.

Orienteers in the main just want to go orienteering. They look to their club (and regional association) to provide opportunities to do just this. BOF as such have little input to the planning, development and delivery of regional and local orienteering. But they do take alot out of club finances by extracting a levy to help fund a National infrastructure. So are we really getting what we want from BOF ?

BOF committees and working parties have redesigned the event structure, re- documented rules and guidelines, modernised and streamlined the Fixtures registrations system, developed clear governance and relaunched a new ranking scheme ~ all valuable products from hours and hours of discussions. I wouldn't want to turn the clock back on all these achievements.

But during this time our sport seems however to have been moved from being a Federation of clubs to one where the National executive feal they have a need to direct. In following this vision they have made a number of mistakes which leave opinions as divided as they ever were.

The current mistakes causing dissatisfaction within the ranks seem to me to be:

* Implementation of a 3 (or 4) tier event structure ~ Why were Distict events ever dumped in with Local events ? They were a brand in their own right which sustained the regular Sunday morning fixture programme.
* Why insist that authority to register events has to be exercised at either National or Club level ? Most fixture programme timetabling occurs within the Associations. That's where the authority should reside. We now have a 3 tier-event structure being scrutinised through a 2-tier authorisation process.
* Ranking eligibility ~ why exclude Local BOF members ? ( this seems to have been a glitch and has now been rectified) Why exclude Area/Regional Champions because they are "too young" ?
* Entry fees ~ Why attempt to impose entry fee discounts for all local events. Let clubs decide.

These are all self inflicted mistakes ~ there was very little consultation at club level.

Had someone stood back from the various recommendations from the working parties and taken overall responsibility for presenting cohesive direction these anonomolies could have been avoided. A missed opportunity.

All this work has been going on against a background of a recession. The true costs of orienteering are interwoven with the cost of travel. As fuel prices rise I think people are looking to orienteer neared to home. Families are becoming more selective as they try to blend orienteering into their daily lives.

The key therefore to increasing participation and surviving as successful club is I believe the provision of regular orienteering opportunities at a local level. BOF should be acting as a facilitator to achieve this end. Are they delivering ?

[Sunlit Forres]

I'm inclined to agree with a lot of what you say Clive, but I do think BOF need to be congratulated on a lot of their recent work, in particular with the on-line fixtures list and rankings, which I'm sure will be improved with all the suggestions that have come forward.

I don't think anyone can argue that orienteering is a sport that attracts an uneven proportion of highly intelligent, deep-thinking and often strongly opinionated people. Some of us are totally obsessed. Acceptance of change in such circumstances is always going to be emotionally-charged, but sometimes I think that we ought to just get on with what BOF decides. Being in the military I'm probably a bit brainwashed into accepting orders, but the reason the military functions so well in the most difficult of curcumstances is that we just have to get in with it. Healthy debate is good, but clubs really must bite the bullet and go along with national policy, no matter how much they might disagree. Try to influence it, absolutely, but accept what's in place.

To return to some of your points:
- Yes, we definitely, totally, completely need to have a way of differentiating 'district' from 'local'.
- We need one level of BOF membership for all that includes everyone and gets everyone ranked. You're either a BOF member or you aren't, and I think all club membership should come with BOF/Association membership as a standard package.
- Purely local (ie club only) events should be free of levy (which they essentially are as the levy is nil for events with fewer than 75 runners). All clubs should impose the £2 non-BOF adult surcharge for other events; road races do it and nobody minds.

I don't have a problem at all with £1.50 levy (or £2.50) for all other events. What I do have a problem with is charging junior levy at the same rate as adults. We've just held a full colour coded event last Sunday where we were charging £1.50 pre-entries for juniors and £2 on the day. With the cost of pre-printed maps and 73 pre-entries, every junior who turned up on the day cost us money. There's one family that comes to our events who has about 6 kids, and we can do without the pressure of having to increase junior charges for the sake of these sort of folk. Perhaps a zero levy for all TD3 courses and below would be one idea? That would also benefit adult first-timers.

I know that the latest levy system went to a vote so I guess I can hardly blame BOF for this - but I have a vague recollection that the poll was flawed in some way. Anyone know anything about that?

[Red Adder]

I think BOF do protect us but are also forced to respond to all sorts of diktats from government (who do provide money for the sport and therfefore demand the right to interfere).

My work on schools maps shows the heavy hand of government. Before Christmas I was never asked about the CRB papers, but an instruction came down from on high which means I always show it, and sometimes have to also provide photographic proof of identity and fill in more forms. The staff at schools also tell me that the gates / fences that have proliferated over schools (now there is a contract I would have like to have won) will need to be locked rather than just closed. Some of our schools are virtual prisons - what message does that give to children.

In this instance BOF have been excellent as they guided through my CRB disclosure with no fuss (or cost to me) and in very short time.

[awk]

I think you make some good points Clive. A couple of issues though:

The current mistakes causing dissatisfaction within the ranks seem to me to be:
* Implementation of a 3 (or 4) tier event structure ~ Why were Distict events ever dumped in with Local events ?

They aren't! Clubs can decide where their events go, but the structure is designed for them to go in Level 2, not in with Locals. Which takes me on to the next point...

Had someone stood back from the various recommendations from the working parties and taken overall responsibility for presenting cohesive direction these anonomolies could have been avoided. A missed opportunity.

All the problems with the 3-tier scheme stemmed from the decision makers stepping back from the working party - and getting it wrong. If a member or members of the working party had been able to lead up the implementation, then none of the problems of 2009 would have happened (and that would have included the initial mess of allocating events to the wrong levels, and getting the guidelines wrong that encouraged people to put them in the wrong levels).

The key therefore to increasing participation and surviving as successful club is I believe the provision of regular orienteering opportunities at a local level. BOF should be acting as a facilitator to achieve this end. Are they delivering ?

Well yes, with some exceptions, I think they are. I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating - just take a look at the calendar and look at the preponderance of local orienteering compared with the 'big' events. We've certainly seen that round here - far more local than ever before.

Personally, I'm enjoying my orienteering more than ever before - the variety nowadays is greater than ever before and most events I go to are really buzzing. I'm finding that the innovations brought in by BOF are starting to enhance the sport (I think the new ranking list could prove to be a real plus, and I've been no fan of the lists up to now). So is it all going wrong? No - far from it.

[graeme]

Is it all going wrong? Not around here!
Already this year we had a fantastic weekend with the Edinburgh Street race and the Chasing Sprint. Or for those of you in the south the Beeley Woods middle race and Northern Champs. Nopesport is not noted for unwarranted praise: only the Northern Champs had any negative comments here (boring legs/symbol sizes). These were immediately acknowledged by the planner and I'd be very confident won't be repeated.

So, four great events, four different formats. A low key night-O on Thursday
Then this weekend another fine street race in Carlisle, and yet another great format at the blodslitet (which I'm v. cross to have missed). Add to that the Edinburgh ceilidh with students welcoming all ages, and an afternoon sitting in the sunshine watching the race in Carlisle. Compare that with five years ago, when all there was was a few colour codeds using the same legs on overused areas.

My ten year old child has been sent off on his own into the woods and into the city to orienteer, and come back happy and unscathed. A big difference from being locked-up in a prison-style "school" .

We have a shiny new ranking list and fixture list, both of which are as good as any comparable sport I've seen, and are actively being improved.

AutoDownload software has all but eliminated the need for registration: people can go orienteering instead!

God's in his heaven and all's right with the world.

[SeanC]

BOF have been very helpful with our local events.

- The local RDO advised on the best locations for our local events, and with Sport England grant applications.
- BOF made a newspaper advert for us, and gave us a small grant to help with the costs
- BOF organised some of the publicity materials we needed - the cards and the small come and try it banner.

Even the recession isn't necessarily bad news for Orienteering. People are looking for cheaper alternatives to the gym etc, and (local) orienteering is cheap compared to many leisure activities.

Lots more could be done of course. Starting up a new series can mean a financial loss for some clubs until critical numbers are achieved to make it sustainable, so a big pool of BOF money not tied to a government initiative to help pay for marketing, mapping, equipment and any other barriers would be good. I guess this would be particularly helpful for East Anglia with a smaller orienteering population than other regions?

[EddieH]

I love it Graeme I've just run my 7th race in 2 weeks (conventional chase, night, urban) and with a further 2 due in the next 6 days I am very happy.

[greywolf]

No it isn't all going wrong

Some specific things haven't gone exactly as we might have liked, but then who ever expects new systems, and new IT systems in particular, to be implemented flawlessly?...and some people can be resistant to change...

But as others have already said, the orienteering has been better than ever and even my feeble legs have managed 4 events / 6 races in just over two weeks (and I've beaten Graeme twice )...and whlst there might have been some crimes against fashion on display in Carlisle, it seemed to me that, as in Edinburgh, there was also a very significant M/W21 contingent, which can only be good for the image and future of the sport.

[RJ]

Most of the items that Clive draws attention to are not really of great concern to the larger picture. It would be good to get them right and to have them all agreed by the orienteering fraternity at large. And as Graeme and others have mentioned, we have been treated to an impressive series of events over the recent month. But it does depend on where you live as to whether you will have experienced them all!!

However, IMO, the bigger picture and the reason why clubs and the sport is doing much better in recent times, and for some it has been a couple of years, is because BOF have encouraged clubs to attain Club Mark. This has provided the framework upon which all the volunteers within each club can work constructively. We will look back at this government initiative and see how much of a difference it has made to our club governance. Equity policy and junior development have been so important. Work in schools has also produced real dividends.

[Clive Coles]

It's good to see some really positive comments coming from those who regularly contribute to this forum. There are some exciting developments within our sport and long may this continue.

The real successes in innovation seem however to flow when orienteers grab hold of the idea and make it happen. Nopesport and the urban league for example has I think been the catalyst for the explosion in the number of urban events now being staged. We are clearly benefiting from this enthusiasm.

But a number of the BOF generated reforms have yet to inspire ~ this concerns me as a lot of time and effort has been put into addressing these matters. That's why I posed the question.

I think we loose our way when we try to implement the good ideas. Change management is a skill and success can only really be measured by the way new ideas are accepted and embraced by the clubs.

We are primarily a sport that is run by volunteers. Within any organisation it is right and necessary to challenge ~ that's one way to develop a response to new demands. But if you frustrate and alienate those volunteers we create a culture where they will just switch off and ignore BOF directions. That's not healthy.

I don't feal comfortable at present. There seems to be a lack of understanding and acceptance that there are still strongly held views that need to be resolved.

The approach from the Executive seems to be "enough is enough" ~ we are moving on.

I too hope we can soon resolve the issues which divide us so that we can get on with orienteering. It will be interesting to see how the BOF executive handle the AGM.

[SJC]

All the problems with the 3-tier scheme stemmed from the decision makers stepping back from the working party - and getting it wrong. If a member or members of the working party had been able to lead up the implementation, then none of the problems of 2009 would have happened (and that would have included the initial mess of allocating events to the wrong levels, and getting the guidelines wrong that encouraged people to put them in the wrong levels).

I might have believed this until I finally found the list of members of the working party on the BOF web site:

Lyn West, Chairman of Event Operations agreed to chair the review group ...... The final group consisted of Lyn West (Chairman & EAOA), Ernie Williams (EMOA & Rules Group), Richard Sharp (SCOA & Fixtures Group), Andy Robinson (SEOA), Graeme Ackland (SOA), Roger Hargreaves (SWOA & Councillor), Andrew Kelly (YHOA), Ed Nicholas (Councillor) & David May (Rules Group Advisor).

With several councillors, the chairman of event operations, and members of rules and fixtures groups on the working party then if they didn't lead the implementation who on earth did ?

[graeme]

Good question.

Once the working party had agreed a coherent set of ideas, I wrote them up in the form of draft guidelines for further discussion, which were put on BOF website prior to the delegate conference (they're still there if you root around). The WP was disbanded, and after that nobody ever contacted me about any aspect of the implementation.

[seabird]

Agree. It's all going very well.

Since Christmas have run in:
1 day score event
4 night score events, on a variety of street, park and woodland terrains.
1 local cross country event.
2 regional course country events with a limited range of courses
2 YHOA Night League events
Northern Champs.
Blodslitet.

And had to reject plenty more real possibilities, including the 2 Nope Urban races, and had other events lost due to the snow.

Like Sunlit Forres, I am happy to implement whatever structure I am given, and try and find a way through the sometimes contradictory guidelines that have emerged from all the work done by our fellow volunteers during the year.

That doesn't stop me having firmly held views on what the best structure/guidelines are. Different views are not evidence of anything going wrong. But neither wiIl i attempt to undermine those guidelines if they change from what I think is best.

[andy]

With several councillors, the chairman of event operations, and members of rules and fixtures groups on the working party then if they didn't lead the implementation who on earth did ?

welcome to software development!

1. WG creates 'perfect system'
2. BOF thinks it's awesome
3. Software developer says 'that's awesome but this bit and this bit will be hard to implement and will cost you more'
4. BOF - do it the easier way then!

I'm not saying this is what happened in this case, but I see it all the time.

[awk]

I might have believed this until I finally found the list of members of the working party on the BOF web site:

Lyn West, Chairman of Event Operations agreed to chair the review group ...... The final group consisted of Lyn West (Chairman & EAOA), Ernie Williams (EMOA & Rules Group), Richard Sharp (SCOA & Fixtures Group), Andy Robinson (SEOA), Graeme Ackland (SOA), Roger Hargreaves (SWOA & Councillor), Andrew Kelly (YHOA), Ed Nicholas (Councillor) & David May (Rules Group Advisor).

With several councillors, the chairman of event operations, and members of rules and fixtures groups on the working party then if they didn't lead the implementation who on earth did ?

I would largely echo Graeme's post - the WG was disbanded, and I wasn't contacted either. Just because there were members of various committees etc on the group didn't mean that any were asked/encouraged/appointed to take a lead role. Rather the reverse - as a group, we were got rid of as fast as possible.

That, to my mind, was the biggest single mistake - the ERG should have been tasked not just with recommendation, but with leading up implementation.