BOf Committee and Group members gagged?

[distracted]

Agree that the letter is open to interpretation and could lessen debate on important issues. But it has come about because of a significant disagreement, not a minor one.

The event structure implementation ( not the original proposals) was what fired the debate which led to the 4-tier proposal. BOF made a mess of the restructuring implementation. To my mind, the call to reconsider what had been imposed came from the core of the membership.

But the motion was put forward with, as the proposer, the chairman of the group who was responsible for a significant part of the implementation. Doesn't being in that position of responsibility/influence while taking that view strike you as being a significant conflict of interest?

The letter is saying that if you want to go to those extremes, you should resign from your position of influence/representation before doing so. I think that's fair - I'm not sure how your position on the committee/group (and potentially others, if chairman) remains tenable otherwise.

[andypat]

I think Snail puts the case very well. Certainly we can't have the situation where a committee refuses to implement an agreed policy. But there's a difference between refusing to implement a policy you're unhappy with, and implementing it while campaigning for it to be changed.

So do I - nice response snail.

Looking at the group and committee structure, there seems to be between 150 and 200 heads (not sure how many folk are on more than 1 committee) in total. That must be a fairly sizeable percentage of the experienced orienteering fraternity that are bound to discuss things internally not externally (even if its nothing to do with their particular group). I cant see how that can be a good thing for orienteering going forward.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

An outrageous statement from an ex-chairman and a new chairman who seem to be acting as if they are the captains of a corporate organisation. Their shameful response to a popular and democratic challenge says a great deal about their motives and attitude. Surely this renders the position of several, including Lynn West, untenable?

The role of BO should be to provide bottom-up support for our sport. If people within BO do not like what the grass roots are saying then it suggests that they are not doing things for good orienteering reasons.

There are many good people who give their time freely to participate in BO committees and who do so for the good of our sport. It would be a short term tragedy if they were pushed out but perhaps it would then precipitate a vote of no confidence at the next AGM from which Lynn West, amongst others, would have no escape.

[SJC]

But the motion was put forward with, as the proposer, the chairman of the group who was responsible for a significant part of the implementation.

Given that the proposal was carried with a significant majority and now needs to be implimented, the proposer would seem to be the ideal person to ensure this happens.
Or is this a deliberate plan by the Board to do everything in its power to make sure the four level structure doesn't happen ?

[NeilC]

I still suspect that many people who voted for the 4-tier structure were voting for the re-introduction of district events and not for the actual motion - the re-introduction of national events. Interesting times ahead.

Also worth ephasising that the AGM motion was proposed by individuals who were not representing their group(s) in this matter.

[Arnold]

Also interesting to note that 3 of the posters in this thread are new to Nopesport and with pseudonyms rather than names (Zaphod, Ludicrous, eldroc)...given the new gagging policy I would expect this to become a much more common occurrence which will be a shame.

It's true that others are using pseudonyms too (myself included) but I think many regulars know who's who.

[SJC]

...given the new gagging policy I would expect this to become a much more common occurrence which will be a shame.

It depends how long the gagging policy lasts.
As pointed out in a previous posts, the majority of group and committee members are there to represent the interests of the membership in their regions, not those of the BOF Board.
For the Board to attempt to impose a gagging policy on all these people is not sustainable in a democratic organisation. Indeed, these individuals may well have been elected specifically to oppose a BOF policy decision.

The Board would seem to have two choices: either to withdraw this policy now, or face a proposal against it at next year's AGM.
One would hope that common sense prevails and they opt for the former rather than the latter.

[geomorph]

suspect I've missed something here.

Every committee I've ever sat on allows you to have formally noted a minority opinion in committee minutes (with its associated personal career/political status risk)

In an open organisation (such as BOF) that record is then published to the general membership.

so.....

at that point open debate can commence. The rest of the governance structure is by-passed.

Is this then an attempt to kill the minority opinion?

Were those being admonished guilty system naiveity?

[Clive Coles]

Fair point Distracted

Doesn't being in that position of responsibility/influence while taking that view strike you as being a significant conflict of interest?

When I entered the 4 - tier debate the motion was being tabled by prominent members of NW clubs. It was in my mind a proposal that grew from grass root opinions. I guess our eventual proposer of the motion will have agonised over his decision to follow his personal view ~ I applaud and thank him for taking that decision.

"Cabinet style governance" is difficult where the Groups are made up with representative members. Therein lies the conflict of interests.

In my own case I was an EAOA delegated member of the BOF Fixtures group. I became disenchanted by the delays and the scope & costs of the new Fixtures system and with the way BOF were implementing the new system.

Amongst other things, BOF attempted to impose the Board view (regarding charging member discounts for local events) by introducing rules to the computer program. I argued to retain flexibility to give clubs the choice. BOF made this a point of principle ~ I lost the argument. I took the personal decision to resign from BOF ~ by so doing I engineered the situation so that I could no longer sit on a BOF committee.

So I became a nopesport contributor instead !

I believe it is fair for the Board to exercise Cabinet constraints over their own deliberations and pronouncements. If however individuals disagree with the verdict from the membership their position is untennable . They should consider their position and if they cannot accept the verdict they should resign.

Such constraints however cannot be extended to representitave groups ~ these members must be able to freely discuss matters with the folk they represent.

[Big Jon]

A right stooshie here, BOF attempting to throw its weight around and yet no posting from Gross yet - is he losing his touch?

[Mrs H]

Maybe he's been nobbled

[LostAgain]

A right stooshie here, BOF attempting to throw its weight around and yet no posting from Gross yet - is he losing his touch?

Maybe he's looking for election? Could be many opportunities.....

[Gross]

Big Jon knows I've mellowed in my old age Just wish the strop had happened many years ago when I was a BOF Councillor then I could happily of expressed my feelings..... BOLLOCKS to the fascists

[NFKleanne]

Well said Gross

[PKJ]

Oh for goodness sake -
- Yes, there was an obvious conflict of interest with one of the proposers
- No, this isn't the way to deal with it
- Yes, some contributors on here need to get a sense of proportion
- No, no-one should resign
- Yes, the agreed proposal as voted on should be implemented
- No, it won't be what some people thought they were voting for
- Yes, people's time effort and intellectual energy should be spent elsewhere - funding cuts, environmental constraints, participation, inter-club competitions....