BOF association and club conference.

[frog]

Did anyone go? What was it like? Received a BOF document on this, couldn't see on it who had attended (but did just flick through it.)

[Oldman]

Report about it at http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... 9yZy51ay8=

[frog]

I saw the official BOF reports which don't give any clues as to which clubs went, but was wondering if anyone had a less official view of it all. Was it worth rushing it through before the AGM? Would it be worth travelling down from Scotalnd for? Did any Scots who went feel that this was a useful tier or did they feel as our committee did that the SOA should be looking after the development and governance of the sport in Scotland (as they do) and this was more for English clubs? Was it a good place to chat to folk from other areas to share ideas or did that not happen as it was all a bit rushed? Was it attached to orienteering events people could compete in to make a weekend of it or was there nothing if you weren't in the CSC? (Can't remember if they were in the same area or not, can't see in the conference report anything about location)

[Oldman]

... Was it worth rushing it through before the AGM? Would it be worth travelling down from Scotalnd for? ... Was it attached to orienteering events people could compete in to make a weekend of it or was there nothing if you weren't in the CSC? (Can't remember if they were in the same area or not, can't see in the conference report anything about location)

- 2012 AGM is in Scotland (near Livingston on Fri 6 Apr)
- I think non-CSC competitors were allowed to run non-competitively at CSC which was near Sheffield where the Conference was held

[andypat]

I think non-CSC competitors were allowed to run non-competitively at CSC which was near Sheffield where the Conference was held

Thats not what it said in the final details though:

This is a closed event and is only open to clubs who have qualified for the CSC/T Final

[Oldman]

Then I stand corrected. Sorry!

[GillJ]

Attendees were split into smaller groups for discussion on various points during the day. These comprised a mix of clubs and associations and groups changed each time.

There were a number of Scots present.

[Scott]

It was possible for delegates whose clubs hadn't qualified to run at the CSC Final if they wished, and if they contacted the organisers in advance (with thanks to DVO for arranging this!). Looking at the results I can see that there were a few people who took advantage of this offer.

[Paul Frost]

There were 5 from Scotland ( 2 x EckO, 2 x Esoc, 1 x Gramp).
I personally think it was worthwhile, if you don't participate in the debates you can't complain if things don't go the way you want.
What it did highlight to me was how much disagreement there is in so many areas.
On membership fees there was every view, from free and make the money from levies to keep it the same as now. Overall there was agreement that it needs to be much simpler, but how to get there is the challenge.

Within the discussions there were questions about what place regions/associations should have in the composition of committees. Some think they MUST ALL be represented and others (like me) that they are irrelevant.
My view is that the committee members should be representing all orienteers not just their region. As having a regional agenda is only going to create division and extend the decision process. There would need to be at least 12 members, and that is too many to be an effective/efficient committee, 7-8 is the limit.

But, and it's a big but, it may be that the regions that are also countries may need to have a specific place in the structure.
I'm obviously aware of the needs/demands from the Scottish perspective, some due to legal/political/funding differences, some to location, but they are real and need to be addressed.

There have been many debates about federations, associations, 4 nations, independence, etc. and this isn't the thread to re-open all those divisions, just understand that there are almost as many views about how orienteering should be governed as there is members.
Or perhaps I should rephrase that to 'as many members that bother to get involved in the debate'.
As another thread here on Nope points out, generally, the younger age group are not engaged. They are not even reading Nopesport now that us oldies have hijacked it and fill it with threads like this one. They are not involved in the decision making process so don't have ownership of the sport.

We all have a very diverse (and often passionate) view of what orienteering is and what it should be, so we need to either resolve that or accept that "you can't please any of the people all the time".
The challenge is how to satisfy newer and younger participants without disenfranchising the older "traditional" orienteers who currently provide most of the volunteer hours that our sport depends on to exist.

[lindseyk]

Slightly off-topic but in response to the posts about guest runners at the CSC Finals can I make a blatant plug for the 2012 Finals which Roxburgh Reivers are hosting on 30 September 2012. We'll definitely be accepting guest runners and with an urban race in Carlisle on the Saturday afternoon hosted by Border Liners you're guaranteed a good weekend of orienteering. A campsite field adjacent to the Finals venue will be available so it doesn't need to be an expensive weekend.

[Clive Coles]

I think that Paul was the weakness of the Old BOF council style of Governance

My view is that the committee members should be representing all orienteers not just their region. As having a regional agenda is only going to create division and extend the decision process. There would need to be at least 12 members, and that is too many to be an effective/efficient committee, 7-8 is the limit.

We tended to get bogged down and it was difficult to resolve matters and move forward.

Now we have a directly elected Board decision making is faster but the communication and buy-in to proposals by clubs has I believe become more difficult. Before you could lobby your Regional Chairman ~ you would meet regularly at regional committees and at events. They were very aware of the views of clubs in the region. They knew what would work in their region and what would be a problem.

There are Country and Regional differences in the way they view priorities. We need to find a way of blending the old BOF Council communication strenghts with that of a Board structure.

I believe it can be done but we must learn from the difficulties of the recent past. For example the prolonged debate over 3/4 tiers of events, What a waste of time that was ~ a self inflicted restructuring that needed an AGM vote to get reversed.

No one solution fits all. BOF should facilitate club activities and should not be seen to dictate to clubs how they should run their Local affairs. Where you get buy-in it happens: where you don't the directives get ignored.

[awk]

I think that Paul was the weakness of the Old BOF council style of Governance.....We tended to get bogged down and it was difficult to resolve matters and move forward.

Now we have a directly elected Board decision making is faster but the communication and buy-in to proposals by clubs has I believe become more difficult. Before you could lobby your Regional Chairman ~ you would meet regularly at regional committees and at events. They were very aware of the views of clubs in the region. They knew what would work in their region and what would be a problem.

Democracy can be slow and time consuming - just ask the Swiss. However, just take a look at what they have achieved - taking one's time isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[andypat]

The challenge is how to satisfy newer and younger participants without disenfranchising the older "traditional" orienteers who currently provide most of the volunteer hours that our sport depends on to exist.

I think thats it in a nutshell Paul- failure to acheive that will result in the demise of our sport!

I think you acheive that by (as an organisation) listening and not over legislating. Facilitating people to acheive they want is a good start too.

I just read Roger's feedback summary of what went on and I found it a very readable and understandable summation.

Personally I feel there should be some sort of rule for any changes in the adminsstration of orienteering. Does the proposal make it more or less likely that A.N. Orienteer will compete in/organise/plan/volunteer for an event? If the answer is no then it shouldnt happen.

[King Penguin]

I think (that) Paul was the weakness ......

For the avoidance of doubt I am certain the above is NOT what Clive meant !

[Clive Coles]

Quite correct KP ~ Paul was not the weakness !

I agree with Andypat

Does the proposal make it more or less likely that A.N. Orienteer will compete in/organise/plan/volunteer for an event? If the answer is no then it shouldnt happen.

We have had too many directives in recent times where BOF seem to suggest how clubs should run their events. For example : you should charge a BOF member discount at all level D events ~ a Board decision I was told !

Many clubs like ours just ignored the suggestion and charged a low flat fee for all attendees when we thought fit. Are we the only bolshie club in the country ?

The fear I have going forward is that they will attempt to impose accreditation and licencing of officials at all levels of event. They will claim this is an Insurance requirement.

I wouldn't want to suggest that training isn't beneficial ~ even us old hands can benefit from attending an Event safety workshop.

But to make attendance at such workshops a pre-requisite before anyone can organise a level D event would be foolish. It willl just turn away potential recruits to the organiser ranks. It would be far better to allow mentoring of first-timers by an accredited club member at level D events. Perhaps it's time BOF found a new Insurer.