British Orienteering Governance Review

[DJM]

EddieH wrote
When I joined BOF I understood that it was in the rules that NO inactive orienteer could officiate on any BOF decision making committee

There's no rule about this these days, nor has there been for some decades. However, every elected member of the Board since its inception has been an active orienteer, and I can't think of a committee/group member who is not active either.

From this point of view, the sport is in excellent hands!

[DJM]

NeilC wrote
In the groups that I am involved in there are almost no association-specific matters discussed. All of the work has national significance. As a result there does not seem any sense in having association reps for the sake of it. Futhermore some of the reps are very active (and do all the work) some are almost completely inactive (and do none). Other reps may not not actually have the best experience/skills for that committee/group. I can see many advantages in hand-picking the best people for the roles and am confident that the board will not just pick "retired south of England" members.

Couldn't agree more. And I see no reason why those who are active committee/group members already shouldn't be high on the Board's shortlists for the new groupings.

[awk]

If the Events and Competitions Committee are given the power to oversee, and make decisions on, all aspects of our events and competition structure then great - we will all know where we stand.

Well, as they were the ones that messed around with and messed up the event structure review, I don't have quite the same enthusiasm. Admittedly, and hopefully, a one-off, but....

I agree that there are rarely association specific issues to discuss. That is not the issue. The issue is that yet more power is being centralised on the Board, and frankly, however honourable and active the board members are (and all of those I know are just that), that is not healthy. It's about checks and balances, and ownership. As it is, since the advent of the Board, I've seen a growing alienation at grassroots from British Orienteering, and more and more talk of 'us' and 'them' (nothing to do with the Scots!). This will simply encourage that.

Yes, there are issues as highlighted in Appendix 1, but just take the first one as an example. Why is the 'vision' of British Orienteering lacking in committees and groups? Because the 'vision' is one of a small group of people at the centre, and is not owned outside. So, will all committee and group members have to sign up to the 'vision' first? Is this the same vision as the orienteer in the forest? The assumptions that underlie this comment are what really bothers me about the where the BoD are taking the sport at present, and underly the growing sense of alienation outside that centre.

[Homer]

I see no reason why those who are active committee/group members already shouldn't be high on the Board's shortlists for the new groupings.

Maybe to start with. But what when they come to the end of their term and are forced to stand down? Quote from the document:

Chairs and committee members will be appointed for a 3 year period with a maximum 3 terms of appointments (9 years). This is the same appointment basis as is used for Directors and should ensure continuity and rejuvenation is built into the system. As with Board Directors, a chair or committee member can stand down for one term and be reappointed. In the first instance the Board will appoint Committee members for a fixed period of time 1, 2 or 3 years, after which the normal appointment and reappointment process will commence. Approximately one third of the members of a committee will reach the end of a 3 year term each year. Any Standing Groups that are formed will be similarly appointed.

I can't see voluteers lining up in sufficient numbers to keep the rejuvination process going as is assumed. I hope I'm wrong though as I do agree with the principal.

[NeilC]

Well, as they were the ones that messed around with and messed up the event structure review, I don't have quite the same enthusiasm. Admittedly, and hopefully, a one-off, but....

How could an as-yet-unconstituted committee have messed up something in the past?

The big problem at the moment is that we have the Board, Events Committee, Rules Group, Major Events Group, Elite Competitions, Junior Competitions etc all believing that it is in their remit to define the structure of GB orienteering. If a committee can be formed that can oversee all of this without undue interference from the Board (unless there are special legal/safety/financial implications) then that has to be an improvement.

[SJC]

I see no reason why those who are active committee/group members already shouldn't be high on the Board's shortlists for the new groupings.

Then why change the method by which they are appointed ?

Given the lack of volunteers for most committees is the new structure going to attract large numbers of new people who aren't already involved in them ? I suspect not.
However I am sure there are a number of people that the board would like removed despite them having the backing of their associations. The new model will enable them to do this.

[frog]

I agree. In general I think BOF committee members should be as answerable to the membership as possible. I'd have nothing against the BOF board appointing people if there were insufficient people nominated from the associations, as 1 area may have more specialists/ keen volunteers in x field than another. I feel that associations should still be able to vote people onto the committee if there are keen people there though and am concerned that with all BOF appointees the board can appoint yes men and ignore those with differing views. The BOF board only has 9 people on it. Considering how many members we have that's alot of power for those 9 to have.

[awk]

How could an as-yet-unconstituted committee have messed up something in the past?

The equivalent. "Events and Competitions" (why not just 'competitions'?) is pretty much what the current Events is now, with a slightly extended remit.

The big problem at the moment is that we have the Board, Events Committee, Rules Group, Major Events Group, Elite Competitions, Junior Competitions etc all believing that it is in their remit to define the structure of GB orienteering.

Well we (Senior Competitions) don't, and I don't see others thinking the same. We have a remit, set by Events Committee, and we work to that. Events (and the Board) don't like what they hear sometimes, which is perhaps more to the point, but they have the ability to overrule and ignore what we say (and do).

If a committee can be formed that can oversee all of this without undue interference from the Board (unless there are special legal/safety/financial implications) then that has to be an improvement.

Do you mean that the Board interferes now? Ironically, the current Events Committee does not have association reps - rather they are the Board appointed chairs of the various committees/groups. Indeed, I would say that that is one of the big problems with Events now, and is recognised as such in the paper. But the Board want to sustain and roll out further the concept of board appointments!

[graeme]

I didn't say SOA was necessarily different from the other associations

But it is very different, in many ways. Most obviously perhaps sportscotland, public and school holidays, school examinations and the land reform act. But also what seems obvious for a small-area high-population country can be impossible in a large-area small-population country.

Embargoes: Paying for a new map in Scotland based on one event is nigh on impossible, conversely most of our areas are sufficiently complex that they host multiple events without becoming overfamiliar.

Traders: Any self respecting event in the midlands can get ultrasport or compasssport along, but It's a big ask to get a trader to come to an event up here.

Autumn: Is a time of year when some of our forests are still very nice AND we're allowed to share them with Capercaillie.

I could go on, but these are just a few of the battles SOA has to fight over and again every time some very-sensible-for-middle-England policy gets rolled out as best practice nationwide.

None of which is to argue that the current committee system isn't broken, a committee which only does its business at face-to-face meetings in Birmingham might as well be SOA-free.

[Red Adder]

Perhaps that nice Mr Salmond can get a move on with his Scottish Independence then SOA can legitimately go it alone - and of course we can hope there is nothing to stop us efete southern codgers from joining Scottish clubs so we can be properly managed for a change .

[distracted]

Awk et al. - interested in what you have to say about the Board and this governance document. Haven't read it in detail yet so not quite sure what to think, and what repercussions there may be. But on your "us and them" bit:

- What have the Board done that you/others disagree with?
- What do you think their role is/they should be focussing effort on?
- What is the "vision" of the average orienteer in the forest that disagrees with the Board's vision so greatly?
- What would you be doing differently over the next few years to secure the future of the sport?
- How can those within the governance structure improve communication and get feedback on proposals going out to the general membership, especially as many ignore their efforts to do so?

Being a board member seems an unenviable task and one I (and many) aren't interested in doing - I am grateful to those who take on the role. I would hazard a guess that the position is made all the more difficult by those who disagree with decisions made within the governance structure without giving reason, alternatives or any/other feedback. It would help them, and probably the sport, enormously if people did this more often rather than complaining after decisions have been taken - and even more so if you've evidence to back your point of view.

[Paul Frost]

What is the "vision" of the average orienteer in the forest that disagrees with the Board's vision so greatly?

My interpretation of the Boards vision is that the only way forward is through weekly "club/participation nights".
The spring edition of Focus has numerous mentions of needing to increase the frequency of participation. It seems that Sport England funding is dependant on increasing participation.
So it's easy to see why there is so much pressure on establishing weekly club nights.

The Development Programme Restructuring article lays out that the most effective structure is to make Regional Development Officers (RDOs) redundant and replace them with Participation Managers.

In recognition of the fact that the messages given out by the Development Team have been mixed, there must now be a period of single-mindedness from the staff involved in the programme...

To answer Distracted's question
I suspect that the "average orienteer", by which I mean one that has been orienteering for a year or more in a mixture of forests/parks/towns, doesn't share the vision that "weekly club/participation nights" are the best thing since sliced bread.
They would rather take part in proper orienteering events, that challenge them mentally and physically and in different locations.

But that won't increase participation quick enough for Sport England.

It requires a bit more commitment to go orienteering as we know it, and unfortunately commitment is not something that society seems to find attractive any more.

[frog]

Geographically much of Scotland isn't suitable for weekly events of a minority sport. OK if in Edinburgh (don't know about Glasgow, I always find travelling through Glasgow takes ages), but we are too scattered in Tayside and Fife to travel to be together for training. We also don't have enough volunteers to put on a weekly event. People are happy to do an event every few months but not keen to do 1 a month.
We had a year where we put on alot of events and ended up with some volunteer burnout and also some events just had a handful of competiitors which left the planners feeling frustrated that their time had been largely wasted. Alot of us have jobs and young families as well. People tend to do their training either alone or with local running clubs. The cost of fuel also puts people off travelling to a weekly training event.
There also seems to be more red tape involved if you start to call it coaching. Not sure if that would extend to a weekly informal training event.
I suspect that if various orienteering officials do try pushing clubs to increase the frequency of events alot of us will look for a more relaxing hobby.

[awk]

As you include me specifically distracted, my answers to your specific questions first:

- What have the Board done that you/others disagree with?

This issue isn't about that, but as you ask the question, I disagreed with the way they introduced the event restructuring (far too rushed), and a number of smaller issues that if cited would appear to be nitpicking. My biggest concern with the Board is the perception that they are driven by Sports Council demands rather than the needs of the sport - there is a difference. That may be wrong, but that's the perception. I argued over a decade ago on Council that we should be working towards making ourselves as independent as possible, but the move has been in the other direction, with the result that much of our strategy is now dictated by non-orienteering concerns.

- What do you think their role is/they should be focussing effort on?

I have no argument with what they say they should be focusing on. Where the argument lies is in how they are going about it.

What is the "vision" of the average orienteer in the forest that disagrees with the Board's vision so greatly?

If you go to the actual vision statement, then not a lot. However, the board obviously feels otherwise, as it's the 'failure' of committee members to follow their vision that is the number one reason for the change. I suspect what they are really talking about is the 'failure' to agree with how that vision is implemented, a different thing altogether - Paul's post picks up on one element of that.

What would you be doing differently over the next few years to secure the future of the sport?

Focusing on enablement and involvement: enabling clubs and associations to function and develop in the ways that are best suited to their own contexts (different horses, different courses). Supporting and effectively making them the driving forces for all stages of development, except the final international level, which has to be at national level.
(Some of this does go on now, but there's an awful lot that runs counter to it, and what does tackle this is all too often presented in a top-down fashion).

How can those within the governance structure improve communication and get feedback on proposals going out to the general membership, especially as many ignore their efforts to do so?

Communication is a two way process, so if one party decides to ignore, then there's a problem.
However, I think there are things that British Orienteering could do to enhance involvement. For starters, they could promote the membership of the various committees - who are they, how do you contact them? Then, before each round of meetings/discussions, BO should be sending out to associations/clubs details of what is to be discussed, inviting feedback to the reps. At the same time a list of things that have been decided.

Having said all that, my objection to what is being proposed isn't based on what the Board have or have not done. Yes, I think they've been going the wrong direction, but if a majority of others disagree with me, then that's my problem! My objection is based on the principles that this is a system which will concentrate too much power within the sport in one small area, and will make the NGB even more remote from those who it's supposed to be governing and representing.
Just one final note. This paper is supposed to be all about ensuring that members, clubs and associations have more time to get involved in the process before decisions are made. Just take a look at the proposed timetable for the introduction of this, the biggest shakeup in the governance of our sport since the introduction of the Board. The conference at where this will be discussed is scheduled for October/November, whilst the membership of the new Events and Competitions Committee is due to be selected in September and start work in November! This isn't genuine consultation, it's a foregone conclusion, and to my mind a dangerous indicator of the value that is really being placed on the Conference based consultation process.

[SeanC]

I'm not sure if I can keep up with all this stuff, but after a skim read

- There's a development committee meeting next week. AWK/Paul I suggest you contact your regional rep if you have problems with the existing program if you haven't done so. I agree the reps email address should be available on the website, have you made this suggestion AWK?

- Development committee reps have been asked for "Good News" stories. Paul and AWK - I know your clubs are very successful so why not pass on this as good news so we can see alternative development options? Or why not write an article for CompassSport/Focus?

- Richard Barrett (BOF participation manager) has tried to persuade us to start a club night/morning. I can't blame him for this, its his job. I told him our club's circumstances mean it's not for us (at the moment), we talked about it and that was that. However other clubs have found them very useful (not necessarily from the same venue every week BTW) so why spoil their fun?

- In case anyone doesn't know, the club night initiative is government funded. Not sure of the exact figures but it's a six figure sum, probably approaching that of all our membership fees and levy fees combined. There are restrictions to what can be done with this money.

- Awk's viewpoint seems to be that we would have been better off not taking the money and doing our own thing. It's not proveable one way or the other but I don't think so. Frog's post illustrates the problem better. Many club's (especially small club) are isolated and when success isn't easy then why bother giving up your time if new members aren't rolling in? All this talk of visions and committee restructuring doesn't seem so important, club's need practical help on the ground so their development initiatives are successful and to help motivation. I can't see how rejecting the club night money would have helped unless we were prepared to pay for an alternative scheme/schemes.

- I looked on the BOF website and there isn't a participation manager for Scotland. Is this because the funding doesn't cover Scotland? I can see why the Scots feel they need to shout loud to point out their different circumstances when this sort of thing happens. But I'd swap these problems if you would swap Happy Valley Country Park for Culbin.