AGM Levy Options

[awk]

Accepted. I was annoyed with myself for not picking this up before it was too late.

Problem is, that if you don't pick it up before notices are circulated, then it's effectively too late.

[Scott]

Is it really so surprising that many of those present at the AGM this year were not expecting the voting system that was used? The description was hidden in "Please note" point 3 of the "Proxy Voting Form Instructions", and I have to admit that I hadn't bothered to read that page, given that I wasn't voting by proxy...

And of course, as awk points out, nobody had any idea what voting system was going to be used until the AGM booklet was circulated, by which point it was too late. (For the record, I contacted BOF on 4th March 2008 to point out that the voting system was counterintuitive and so needed widely advertising, but was told that it would not be publicised then because "we fear either putting people off voting or confusing them as to how to cast their vote".)

[roadrunner]

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?

Before criticising the voting system, it's a good idea to see if it really behaves the way you think. To make things easy, suppose there were 300 people voting; 150 wanted the status quo (option A) and the rest wanted reduced levy for juniors, but were evenly split between preferring options B and C. These people are presumably going to vote for option B as first preference and option C as second, or vice versa; as someone has already said, it doesn't make any difference whether or not you give a third preference. If all the "status quo" people just voted for option A, the scores would be:

A: 150
B: 225
C: 225

In other words, there would be a clear vote for change, even though only half the people wanted it. This is the exact opposite of what you were saying would happen!

If the "status quo" people expressed a second preference, evenly split between the other options, then all of them would score 300, which is arguably a fairer result.

So, I think that the voting system is quite fair, but of course it should be explained clearly beforehand.

[mharky]

In other words, there would be a clear vote for change, even though only half the people wanted it. This is the exact opposite of what you were saying would happen!

Welcome to the wonderful world of voting!!!

Well over half of the voting "population" could be outright against whatever it actually it is that gets in, unfortunately their votes get spread over numerous better voting options...

[roadrunner]

According to last year's Annual Report, BOF has about 12000 members, and yet only between 170 and 1025 voted on the levy options, with the margin in favour only a small fraction of the votes cast. Surely the only logical conclusion is that most of the membership would have been equally happy (or unhappy) with any of the options offered?

If we use this voting scheme again, though, I've spotted a mistake on the proxy form. On all the other motions, you can instruct your proxy to vote for, against, as they choose or not at all. With this one, however, reading the instructions literally, you have to express a preference or the ballot paper is ignored:

Ballot papers that do not contain numerical and sequential ranking of proposals commencing with a ‘1’ will be void.

And if you left all the boxes blank and the paper wasn't ignored, would that have meant that your proxy should have abstained or voted as they saw fit?

It probably didn't matter too much this time as this was the only remotely controversial motion, and so anyone who bothered to fill in a proxy form probably did so to express a preference for one option or the other, but in future there should be an "abstain" box, and the instructions should state that leaving all boxes blank is OK.

[Sunlit Forres]

According to last year's Annual Report, BOF has about 12000 members, and yet only between 170 and 1025 voted on the levy options, with the margin in favour only a small fraction of the votes cast. Surely the only logical conclusion is that most of the membership would have been equally happy (or unhappy) with any of the options offered?

Much as I completely, utterly and wholeheartedly disagree with the outcome of the vote (whatever its faults) it's obvious that the majority of the BOF membership don't seem to care either way. We might not like it, but the money has to be raised somehow so let's let the BOF management get on with their job for now and revisit the issue next year. The system as it stands seems to me like a big disincentive to try to attract juniors to all but the smallest events and I hope that a more sensible structure can be agreed sometime in the future.

[awk]

So, I think that the voting system is quite fair, but of course it should be explained clearly beforehand.

There are some pretty substantial assumptions that you are making, that you can't make in practice. However, I do accept that there might be a situation where the views expressed were actually the opposite of what I thought!

However, whichever way you look at it, this system is not transparent which above all else is what BOF needs. And there is a danger that it doesn't sufficiently accurately reflect the views of the voters, as your example indeed suggests (even if it's an example to try and demonstrate that it might work the opposite way to the one I suggest).

I agree with Sunlit Forres that it has to be left for this year. However, if it comes to the fore again next year (and I suspect it will!), it needs proposals which can generate a much clearer, more transparent, set of results.

[Spookster]

With the AGM not far away, I thought it was time to bump this thread.

Putting aside (for the moment) the issues of voting mechanisms and transparency of outcome of the vote, my question is: Has the decision that juniors are treated as equivalent to seniors for levy calculation purposes made any diffeence to your club's ability to attract juniors to events? Or would counting juniors as a proportion of seniors for levy calcs been have beneficial to you in some way?

My own view is that it has made no difference to SYO events, because entry fees are set separately, without reference to the levy per participant. But having said that, it would be better in principle if juniors were charged less levy per head, given that we charge less entry for juniors. Of course that would mean the senior levy is slightly more per head.

[SeanC]

I would have to say no as well. Publicity and frequency/location of events seem to be the main factors. Our fees haven't changed either and the first event is likely to be local, therefore attracting little or no levy. I wouldn't say it was worth the hassle of changing the formula again.

[mike g]

Not this again; an even more pointless debate than 3 or 4 levels. I'm sure last time this came up someone demonstrated that, for the vast majority of clubs, whichever option was chosen the total levy paid over the course of a year would vary by no more than one or two hundred pounds. A decision was made and people who don't like it should live with it rather than bringing the same issue back again and again.

[NeilC]

Last year we encouraged our members to vote for the proposal that was eventually adopted because it was the best one financially for our club, despite the fact that our juniors run free at our events. Thus we knew what to expect and have managed our accounts without having to change any fee structures. Seniors still subsidise juniors and some events still subsidise others.

[graeme]

Has the decision that juniors are treated as equivalent to seniors for levy calculation purposes made any difference to your club's ability to attract juniors to events? Or would counting juniors as a proportion of seniors for levy calcs been have beneficial to you in some way?.

Since last year I've been involved in about a dozen little events, with large proportions of juniors. At no point has the difference in BOF levy been an issue. Probably if the junior levy went down and the senior went up we'd gain a few quid, but not enough to cover driving to Devon to argue about it.

[Sunlit Forres]

Interesting to see this resurrected. I was originally very much against the new levy system, but accepted that this was the decision and we just had to get on with it. A year down the line, like other recent posters, I don't think it's made a massive difference. For a small club like ours, many of our local events attract only 50 or so runners so there's no levy to pay and we make a very modest profit at £3/£2 with pre-marked maps with e-punching. Attendances at our bigger events are generally higher than in the past, so the small loss on junior entries is offset by the increased adult entry (many of these adults being parents of the kids who we're subsidising).

BOF have had the decency to award levy-free status to junior-only events. This has encouraged us to stage the inaugural Moray & Highland Junior Champs at Culbin on 13th June. This is being run in parallel with a normal 8-course colour coded 'regional/level 2' event but we're marketing it locally as a separate event (as per the BOF fixtures page). The spin we're putting on it is on http://www.moravianorienteering.org. As has been said many times on the 4 Levels thread, an event's what you make it and the level almost becomes irrelevant.

In case anyone is interested in doing something along similar lines, we got £330 funding from the Big Lottery 2014 Communities fund to pay for posters/flyers for the junior event. The funding application couldn't have been easier and we got an answer within 2 weeks. Caroline at BOF Central is supporting this by designing the posters for us. I therefore think that we're getting good value out of BOF in the big scheme of things and I don't begrudge the extra levy payments. .

[EricH]

BOF have had the decency to award levy-free status to junior-only events. This has encouraged us to stage the inaugural Moray & Highland Junior Champs at Culbin on 13th June. This is being run in parallel with a normal 8-course colour coded 'regional/level 2' event .

Looking at your details the courses being run by the Juniors look like the same courses available on the Colour Coded event so if I was being cynical I would say this was just a way to avoid paying the full amount of levy due by making the number of juniors counting towards the levy as 0.

If other clubs also started making all juniors being part of a junior only event I am sure that BOF would soon start looking at this

[andypat]

Enterprising I'd say rather than cynical.