Not enough Officials!

[brooner]

As an M21 who enjoys being involved in events, I'd be more than happy to step up and control an event every so often, but as noted here, the hoops to jump through to be able to do so make it an unlikely occurrence.

Grade C

• Organise a competition registered with British Orienteering within the previous 10 years.
• Plan a minimum of 3 events, with at least one at Level C, and at least one within the previous 5 years.
• Complete a British Orienteering Controller Grade C course.
• Complete an accredited Safety course.
• Be appointed to the Grade by their Constituent Association.

Just to get started with controlling, it is likely to take at least 1 year in order for me to meet the requirements. So we're looking at a good chunk of time (multiple weekends) spent planning a level C event (presuming I've not done such a thing in the past, I've lost track of what that actually means these days), coupled with finding time to do the controller course and safety course. As well as organising an event if that hadn't been already done.

To be honest, when it comes to spending multiple weekends just to become a controller, vs spending that time competing or coaching* (let alone doing anything outside of O) it isn't the most appealing of prospects.

* having said that I've been trying to complete an orienteering coaching qualification for about 5 years...

[seabird]

Maybe abolishing the 'no controller from same club' rule would ease shortage problems.

In many ways that is the most ridiculous rule. I believe it is supposed to encourage more challenging controlling and prevent cosy, over-familiar and hence complacent relationships between controller and the other main officials.

However many events with controllers from another club in practice draw together officials who have a pre-existing familiarity and often friendship - without any noticeable drawbacks, by and large.

[70plus]

None of these perceptive explanations is rocket science. The age profile of competing orienteers has shown a developing shortage in the M/W 21-35 bracket for many years - the profile of event officials is just a subset of the whole picture. BO expresses an intention to target that cohort to balance the structure, and I guess the stronger focus on shorter faster racing with Sprint-O, City-O etc fits that message.

Those who read the officials' comments from Lakes-5 2010 may recall one controller's remark that the average age of organiser, planner and himself was over 65. I don't think that is particularly unusual now, and it should worry all of us.

The demand that controllers should be from another club was relaxed in NWOA some time ago for lower-level events. It was recognised as an undesirable option, as it encourages cosy, mutual back-scratching arrangements. It was intended as a stop-gap arrangement, but I suspect that needs will continue to must (ugh).

I don't think the idea of adding a £1 controller surcharge to all event fees would work out well either. As mentioned above, before long all officials would expect a wage.

[SeanC]

Who makes and maintains these rules? It strikes me that you could get a quick win by changing the rules to something like:

Grade C

- Complete a British Orienteering Controller Grade C course.
- Complete an accredited Safety course (I would imagine this is needed for insurance)
- Be appointed to the Grade by their Constituent Association (and it's up to them, or probably one individual, to decide how many events a prospective controller must have planned/organised, if any).

In this way you can have rules that are appropriate to the region, rather than one size fits all that probably doesn't. Also you wouldn't need a BOF committee to sit and agree minor changes to rules and individual regions might find more appropriate ways of training their controllers.

If NeilC says that brooner has the skill/experience to be a Grade 3 controller then that's good enough for me.

[Scott]

I guess I don't see paying all event officials in "key" roles a bit of cash as that big a deal in principle, even if entry fees do have to go up slightly to cover it, but I guess the problem there comes when participation numbers drop so low that there's no money to be made anyway. It's already happening in other sports - at the small number of road races where I have helped out as a volunteer marshall, the organiser has been paid an "honorarium" - and paying coaches a wage is gradually becoming common in orienteering. And organising some of our "Major Events" is effectively a full-time job as it is. But as SeanC says, maybe the money would be better spent paying people to do some of the other "volunteer" jobs that nobody wants...

Sean - it's Rules Group's job to make the rules, and yes, for people controlling at an association level perhaps the association should be left to judge experience. As an M21 who might be interested, it's the planning requirement that is the problem - organising one CATI event in a ten-year period isn't really a huge barrier, but there's actually a fair bit of competition for planning roles at "bigger" (Level C+) events. On the other hand, I don't think you would want a controller who doesn't have at least a bit of planning experience.

[NeilC]

If you are an experienced competitor who thinks that they could be a controller, and aren't just using the rules as an excuse to not put yourself forward, then approach the relevant officer in your association and ask. Perhaps you don't formally qualify because the PT or JOK sprint that you organised was registered as a local event but most associations will be pragmatic enough to consider this experience as suitable. The last two controllers that SEOA appointed had not formally organised at the appropriate level but had enough relevant experience to convince us that they were completely suitable.

The course needs to stay. I have run a number of these courses and find that many competitors have large gaps in their knowledge - particularly with respect to junior course planning - that needs to be filled before they can control.

The safety course is not going to go away so just do it - you might even feel better prepared for when that accident does happen.

I've heard the excuse about not being able to control because you are unable to get round all the controls on the morning of the event many times. It's been a long time since I've even considered doing such a thing, as a controller my time on the morning is much better spent making sure that all the logisitics are working smoothly and advising on last minute panics/hiccups. The day(s) before are when the control sites should be checked - trust the planner to put the controls in the agreed places and only get involved when there is some doubt.

P.S. SeanC I've been keeping tabs on all the KNC/KOL events with which you've been involved. Expect a tap on the shoulder soon.

[Clive Coles]

I am not sure I like the idea of paying Controllers other than reimbursing out of pocket expenses. If this become commonplace we surely need to do the same for the other key officials.

Just consider the club surveyor/mapper. Many clubs, like my own, are fortunate to have a member who puts in many hours in the forest but who declines to charge a going rate for the job. It's a bit much therefore to just single out the controller for payment ~ other volunteers donate just as much (if not more) of their time for free.

I do like the idea of relaxing the rule to allow an Association to determine the qualification requirements for Association (level C ). It's another example of BOF trying to fit everyone into the same straightjacket.

At level C and D, guidelines would still be helpful ~ to make them rules just encourages Clubs and Associations to turn a blind eye and be pragmatic.

[Scott]

On the other hand, mapper (like coach) is another job that some clubs seem perfectly happy to pay people a professional fee to do, at least some of the time - perhaps because of the time commitment involved, or because you get a more tangible end product?

Although as has been noted before, the quality of work you get from paying a professional mapper isn't necessarily any better than that from a volunteer, which I suppose may partially undo my argument that paying people might raise standards.

[Red Adder]

I'm not very happy about paying event officials beyond expenses - to me one of the better thing about O is the ethos of volunteering. It also the best way to meet other people in the sport which otherwise can be rather solitary.

Mapping is a harder one as the hours involved are generally far greater (an A4 map at 1:10,000 is probably 100+ hours effort). I only take expenses for maps for my club as I treat as a hobby which give me a lot of enjoyment - but then only work on projects that interest me (ie anything involving a map) and to timescales that don't press me. These choices though are mine and I can understand that clubs sometimes need to go down the professional route. [disclosure of interest - I do take a fee for maps of schools and other organisations]

[AndyC]

I've heard the excuse about not being able to control because you are unable to get round all the controls on the morning of the event many times. .

I believe that a controller should ensure that the controls are in the correct place as late as practical - I can't get to all the controls on the morning of a winter event as I'm simply not fast enough to cover the ground between dawn and first start so I visit the furthest away the previous afternoon/evening and cover the "vulnerable " ones and the remainder on the morning.
I've also had situations where we weren't happy to leave the controls out overnight and the controller and I have handled it by a joint exercise. Having agreed all the exact locations previously we take half the controls each and head off to different areas to put them out. Meeting in the middle I then check the controls he's put out (effectively "controlling" him) and he checks the controls I've put out. Each control is therefore confirmed in the correct position by both of us (neither moves a control without talking to the other). Very quick in practice and easier in the amount of effort required as we can make full use of the effective light. Probably strictly a breach of rules but fulfills the spirit.
Should time be very short we can decide to allow runners to start at any time after we've got the controls out unless either of us express concern about a control for any reason

[Scott]

Mapping is a harder one as the hours involved are generally far greater (an A4 map at 1:10,000 is probably 100+ hours effort).

But, to pick an admittedly rather extreme example, I reckon that's probably a lot less than the hours involved in coordinating the JK or BOC, and it's probably about equivalent to organising a major urban event - in my experience these can be significantly more work than organising forest events, because of all the time spent completing paperwork for and meeting with the local authorities and the multiple landowners.

I can see why people would rather keep the sport volunteer-run, although "professionalism" is obviously increasing anyway (even if paid mapping is at a constant-ish level, I get the impression that paid coaching is becoming much more common than it was, and it seems set to increase even further with BOF's new development policy).

I think part of the problem (and I know I'm massively over-generalising here) is that people today may be much more inclined to see their leisure activity as a transactional thing than they were thirty years ago: you turn up, pay your money, have fun, and go home. And since you've already paid your money, you feel no obligation to offer up your time as well, so you're free to spend your remaining spare time doing something else. I'm not sure what the solution to that one is.

[DJM]

Gnitworp wrote:
Maybe abolishing the 'no controller from same club' rule would ease shortage problems.

The 2011 Appendix C (Event Officials) states, regarding matching controllers to Levels:

Level A: Grade A Controller.
Level B: Grade B Controller or above. The controller shall be from a different club to the organising club.
Level C: Any Controller, who should be from a different club from the organising club...

So, rather curiously, the only events which have to have a controller from a different club are at Level B ...

Re payment of controllers - the argument goes that, if controllers are paid then why not organisers, planners etc? Perhaps the comparison with mappers is helpful here: in general, club member mappers produce maps on a volunteer basis whilst mappers from outside the club are paid.

So, we're already used to the principle that officials from outside the club can be paid whereas those from the organising club itself aren't. Mightn't this principle extend to controllers also?

[70plus]

"So, we're already used to the principle that officials from outside the club can be paid whereas those from the organising club itself aren't. Mightn't this principle extend to controllers also?"

Now, that seems a good way to persuade clubs to keep controlling in-house?

[graeme]

Talking about paying officials and entry costs, I found this interesting

The price is so low, unsustainable through any sensible business model other than free volunteer labor, that it has the social contract built in. By entering our events, there is an implicit promise that at some future point you will volunteer a significant chunk of your time so that the show may go on.

This, to me, is the largest obstacle to growth.

By attaching the social contract as an implicit condition of club membership (shame on you if you don't help rake out the birdsh*t—how dare you eat that free ostrich), you eliminate possibly the majority of the people who got past the first barrier, the technical complexity of the sport. Some people want no part of the contract; they are far too valuable, they create far more value per unit time than they ever would putting on an O event, even if you were to price O events reasonably. And most wish they could join in, but have families, jobs, and, well, lack of skills that present obstacles to productively volunteering. And these folks feel the shame and pressure of not being able to contribute, and stop coming largely because of it.

I think it's on the Freakonomics blog that they write about things that people will gladly do for free that they won't do for money. We had that experience firsthand. We invited someone, not a close friend, to dog sit, and he gladly did it. No money was mentioned. The second time, we offered $100. We haven't talked since. All sorts of considerations pop up when money comes into play. In this particular case, most likely certain boundaries were overstepped. The person was uncomfortable with accepting money (for an elaboration of reasons, I guess I'd have to google out that blog post, sorry not this morning).

In our case, money is already in play. Some people will indeed gladly volunteer for the cause. Some won't volunteer if they know someone else is getting paid for a similar job; that's a loss to us, and there is proof of existence. Some will gladly put in a lot more time if there is any money at all; that's a win, and there is proof, too.

I didn't have a concusive indication of what the net effect of this dynamic would be until the explosion of trail runs in the Bay Area in the mid-2000s. Until then, trail runs were almost exclusively put on by volunteers, and remained a niche activity. Volunteer-led organizations weren't interested in promotion, or effective at it. When private operators came into play, we transitioned to 400–500-attendance events every weekend. Almost all sell out. The operators had to promote their guts out to earn this attendance (so they could eat), and to raise the quality of the product; as a result, we have the explosion.

This is all in a different plane than the tax and surcharge and development considerations. Even if there was no opportunity for arenas, development, and other high-cost add-ons (most trail runs are relatively fancy-free, other than lots of free food), the all-volunteer member-service model is the single most significant obstacle to growth. (Conversely, if you are happy with stagnation, retaining the volunteer model is the surest way to go. You'll be guaranteed a premium product at a low price for a long while. Be prepared to rake the birdsh*t.)

I like the bit about working for free. I'm happy to do (some) volunteer stuff for free. Offer me a fifth the minimum wage, and I'm likely to take offence. Offer me a free entry, and I'm happy again. Weird but true.

[SeanC]

Just scanning through that the piece of evidence presented was that good marketing raised their attendance and this was easier as a profit making organisation.

I think we could keep the volunteer led ethos of Orienteering and pay for (more) marketing and sales from people with experience in this area. I know some clubs do great work in this respect, but many need help - people too busy doing mapping, organising, controlling.

The point about implicit requirement to volunteer? Possibly that puts people off, being a member of a club = polite requests to help if you get keen, especially small clubs. We''ve put this in the "intro to our club" part of our website with this in mind.

"You don't have to be a member of an orienteering club to go orienteering. Many of our members gain great enjoyment helping to organise our events, but members are not expected to volunteer as we know that not everyone has the time or the inclination. Whatever your level of experience, we encourage you to join us so that we can then give you the help you need to get the most out of the sport. "

But when they join probably one in 3 club emails sent to their inbox is a request for help, and it's tempting to get the language in these emails and in club newsletters slightly off and make the non-volunteering members feel guilty - sentances like "let's not rely on the few", "do your bit for the club" etc etc.

Neil - sounds like the controlling rules could be amended to mention the disscretion that regions have in practice.